Part 2: A multi-angular refutation of Shiite views on Ulil-Amr.


Part 2: A multi-angular refutation of Shiite views on Ulil-Amr.

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Insha Allah! In the ‘Part 2’ we will be answering the Shia arguments and clearing their misconceptions in regards to the verse(4:59) and regarding obedience to Ulil Amr(those in authority). In our research we found that the root cause of Shia arguments is misunderstanding of the verse(4:59), as they considered it to be unconditional obedience. Thus we recommend our esteemed readers to refer the ‘Part 1’ of these articles, as with the help of Allah(swt), we have explained there, that obedience to Ulil Amr is Conditional.

Answer to the Shia arguments and clarification of their misunderstandings.

Argument 1:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] First Problematic issue – Is obedience to the political leadership and army leadership unconditional?

  1. Those in army authority positions.
  2. The Head of State, this incorporates the Leader down to officers implementing rules and regulations at a ground level

The verse deems obedience to the Ul’il Amr to be unconditional applying this to these two categories of personnel, is their obedience absolute or conditional?

The scholars of tafseer have held obedience to these individuals to be conditional, since such people can make mistakes, hence their obedience is restricted to them adhering to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and ensuring that all directives given are in accordance with these legal provisions. [End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen asks the question regarding obedience to political and army leadership(those in authority) to be unconditional or conditional, and then answers their own question by quoting the view of scholars of tafseer that the obedience to them is conditional. So we affirm these views quoted by Shiapen that the obedience to political and army leadership is conditional and we have explained this in detail in the ‘Part 1’ of these articles.

 

Argument 2:

Shia website[Shiapen] continues and states:

[Quote] What better evidence of this limited obedience can there be than the frank admission of Abu Bakr who said at the time of his inaugural speech:

“Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong”.
Tarikh Tabari, English translation Volume 9 page 201

He himself acknowledged that obedience to his authority was not unconditional, it was limited there existed in the Ummah others better than him, and he was himself looking to others to help him.

The first speech is very important as we know in modern times when a party comes to power it sets out its agenda in its inaugural speech, it’s thinking, it’s values, the speech will reflect the leadership. This speech was an acknowledgement of his incapability’s and as such points to his acknowledgement as an Imam with limited capabilities. How can Abu Bakr be deemed the Ul’il Amr whose obedience is unconditional when he was seeking to rely on others for assistance when he deviated? The duty in the Qur’an is to obey those in authority, and yet the supposed Ul’il Amr Abu Bakr is looking to others to guide him![End Quote]

Answer:

Since Shias have made a religion contrary to the teachings of Ahlelbayt and Quran, they aren’t aware of the views of Ahlelbayt even from their own books. The obedience mentioned in Quran for Ulil Amr is conditional as we have explained in great detail in the ‘Part 1’ of these articles. But since Shiapen out of their ignorance have used a quote from Abubakr’s(ra) speech, then we would like to educate ‘Shiapen’, by quoting a sermon/speech of Ali(ra) during his Caliphate from the sacred Shia book, Nahjul Balagha. So now, what all they argued against Abubakr(ra) will be applied to Ali(ra).

Below is Ali(ra)’s own admission on his humanly fallibility :

Ali(ra) said: “……….Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Therefore, do not abstain from saying a truth or pointing out a matter of justice because I do not regard myself above erring . I do not escape erring in my actions but that Allah helps me in matters in which He is more powerful than I. Certainly, I and you are slaves owned by Allah, other than Whom there is no Lord except Him. He owns our selves which we do not own. He took us from where we were towards what means prosperity to us. He altered our straying into guidance and gave us intelligence after blindness.” [One of the most sacred Shia book, Nahjul balagha, sermon 215, Delivered at the battle of Siffin. About mutual rights of the ruler and the ruled]

Comment: This sermon of Ali(ra) proves that Ali(ra) admitted his fallible human nature, just like what Ahlesunnah believes. The shias can change a day into night by their commentary and interpretation, but the fact is that Ali(ra) said these words to the people, shias can make lame excuses when they find their imams supplicating Allah to forgive their sins, and they can say the imams did this out of humbleness, but here Imam Ali(ra) was not directing his words towards Allah, but towards the people. If he taught his followers about his infallibility then in no way he(ra) would have said those words to the people, because these words were against  his own teachings. So, the question which remains un-answered is that, why is Ali(ra) encouraging people to point out the matter of justice, if he can never make a mistake, then what is the point in encouraging people? This shows that the Shia interpretations are wrong and invalid.

 

Argument 3:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] Second problematic issue – Is obedience to irreligious leaders unconditional?

The late grand Mufti of Pakistan Maulana Muhammad Shafi writes about to following the Wali al Amr:

“One group of Tafseer scholars, that includes Abu Hurrayra says Wali al Amr refers to principles and power, one who runs the State”
Tafsir Maarif al Qur’an Volume 2 page 450

If the Ul’il Amr refers to any political leader at the helm of the State then it becomes incumbent to follow evil, tyrannical, corrupt rulers, those who have deviated from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Is it really believable that a debaucher like Yazeed be recognised as the Ulil al Amr? [End Quote]

Answer:

Again this argument is the outcome of Shia misunderstanding regarding obedience to Ulil Amr, as they have misunderstood it to be unconditional. We would like to quote an authentic narration from Prophet(Saw), to clear this misunderstanding of Shias.

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).

We find that people must obey rulers in things they like or dislike, but if the ruler orders to commit a Sin or orders to go against Allah(swt) and His Prophet(Saw) then there is no obedience to him. Thus proving that obedience to rulers is conditional.

This is the reason we find in authentic history that Ali(ra) obeyed the Caliphs before him and remained loyal to them, because He(ra) knew and believed that obedience to Ulil Amr was conditional. The illogical and cheap Shia excuse that Ali(ra) was practising taqiyya(dissimulation) during his obedience to the Caliphs before him,  is actually an insult and dishonour to him.

Let us present an example:
لو سيرني عثمان إلى صرار لسمعت وأطعت

Ali bin AbI Talib (RA) said during the Caliphate of Uthman (RA): If Uthman ordered me to go to Sirar I would heed and obey. [Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 15/255, Sanad is Sahih.]

However, on certain occasion when Ali(ra) viewed that the personal opinion of the Caliph is not correct, He never obeyed them on that, as can be found in (Maliks Muwatta Book 020, Hadith Number 040).

We would like to present one more authentic report from Prophet(saw) which further clarifies this misunderstanding of Shias, because we as believers consider the best guidance to be the guidance of Prophet(saw).

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.

 

Argument 4:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote]Third problematic issue – How do you resolve a dispute between the categories of Ul’il Amr?

Whilst these two categories (political leadership and army leadership) should work in co-ordination with one another through an atmosphere of mutual respect an understanding of their separate roles and responsibilities, what should happen in the eventuality of a dispute arising between the two groups? The answer is provided for us in the second portion of Surah Nisa verses 059:

YUSUFALI: … If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

Since we can’t physically refer to Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) and this verse is applicable for all generations, we will need to turn to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of his Messenger for an answer. In the absence of the physical presence of the Prophet (s) when it comes to resolving the dispute via the Qur’an and Sunnah then that responsibility will fall on to the shoulders of the third category of Ul’il Amr the Fuquha (scholars of Deen). In theory this third group should be able to resolve the impasse between the first two groups by ruling in accordance with the dictates of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Sadly, when we put theory in to practice in Muslim countries such as Pakistan we see that the Ulema are themselves participants in politics and divided across political affiliation, they also have different understanding / interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah (that includes Hadith that contradict one another). [End Quote]

Answer:

If this is a problem which ‘Shiapen’ highlights then how are Shias or countries where Shia law is implemented like Iran(etc), free from this problem? Because even Shias face the same problem which ‘Shiapen’ tries to portray that a Sunni country experiences; since even Shia scholars have different understanding/interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. Moreover, Shias have different groups which have different understandings of their beliefs, like Usoolis and Akhbaris.

Secondly, if this is the problem, then it is the problem in the system which is not properly based on Islamic principles, So ‘Shiapen’ should blame the ‘PSEUDO’ Islamic system of Pakistan or Iran, etc.

Thirdly, as for the Judge between those two groups, then if he sincerely and fairly makes a judgement whether it is correct or wrong, the following ruling would apply here. Prophet(Saw) said: “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards; and if a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.”[Sahih Muslim, Book 18, Number 4261]

This reports shows that Judges could sometimes give incorrect judgement too , and if they were sincere in giving that even then they will be rewarded, It’s not like the Judge must always be correct otherwise he cannot be a Judge, as Shiapen is trying to portray. If Shiapen isn’t convinced with this rule then they should demand to remove all Judges from Shiism implemented country like Iran, since they too are not free from making mistakes in their Judgments. This report also shows that Prophet(Saw) never preached that there would be some infallible present between the people to solve all problems between the people.

 

Argument 5:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote]Fourth problematic issue – Can power really be shared by two Wali al Amr’s at one time?

Renowned grand Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Late) father of Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani states:

“Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Hasan Basri and the Tafseer scholars, have said that Wali al Amr refers to the scholars of Fiqh, they are the representatives of the Prophet, and the administeration of the Deen is in their hands…One group of Tafseer scholars, that includes Abu Hurrayra says Wali al Amar refers to principles and power, one who runs the State”
Tafsir Maarif al Qur’an Volume 2 page 450

He then cites the third option…

….Tafseer Ibn Katheer and Tafseer Mazhari state it refers to both Ulema and Leader, since power is administered by both”.
Tafsir Maarif al Qur’an Volume 2 page 452

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi said it referred to both but is this logical? History is replete with examples of difference between the scholars and the State Leader [End Quote]

Answer:

This argument of ‘Shiapen’ was answered by the same author whom they quoted, the answer to the argument is in the next page from which ‘Shiapen’ quoted their argument.  Let us quote what Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi explained after presenting the views which were quoted by ‘Shiapen’.

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi stated:

[In the present verse, the obedience to those in authority means obedience to both ‘ulama’ and hukkam (religious scholars and officials). According to this verse, it becomes necessary to obey Muslim jurists in matters which require juristic research, expertise and guidance as it would be equally necessary to obey those in authority in matters relating to administrative affairs.

This obedience too is, in reality, the obedience to the ahkam or commands of Allah Almighty. But, as seen outwardly, these commands are not there in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. Instead, they are either enunciated by religious scholars or the officials. It is for this reason that this particular call for obedience has been separated and placed at number three and given the distinct identity of ‘obey those in authority’. Let us keep in mind that, the way it is binding and neces­sary to follow the Qur’an in the specified textual provisions of the Qur’an and follow the Messenger in the specified textual provisions of the Messenger, so it is necessary to follow Muslim jurists in matters relating to jurisprudence, matters which have not been textually specified, and to follow rulers and officials in matters relating to administration. This is what ‘obedience to those in authority’ means.( Tafsir Maarif al Qur’an Volume 2 page 478)]

We find from the explanation of Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi that people need to obey religious scholars and officials in their respective posts. If the issue is related to religious issues like jurisprudence then Muslim jurists should be followed, and if the matter is relating to administration then the officials should be followed.

Suppose, if the state leader is forcing Ulama or people to commit something against Quran or Sunnah, then in that case he is not to be obeyed. The best example for this scenario is that of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal(rah). Imam Ahmad was imprisoned and subjected to various forms of torture under the Abbasid Ruler Al-Mutasim in an effort to force him to publicly support the [Mu`tazila] position that the Holy [Qur’an] was created, but the Imam refused to give up the belief that the [Qur’an] is the uncreated word of Allah. Thus the believers followed Imam Ahmad in this regards and not the Ruler, because this was an issue related to faith and religion not administration.

 

Argument 6:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote]Identifying the true Ul’il Amr

When it comes to the Sunni position on Ul’il Amr we are left in a confused state amplified by the existence of three categories of Ul’il Amr and the potential conflicts that we have cited. Allah (swt) would never allow for the Ummah of Muhammad (s) to be left in such a quagmire of confusion, and would ensure that existence of the Ul’il Amr would be known to all. When Allah (swt) tells us to obey the Ul’il Amr, we believe that he would be that person whose level of excellence would encompass all the categories that the Sunni Ulema had cited. No such demarcation of Ul’il Amr was made when Allah (swt) appointed Talut over the people:

002.247 [YUSUFALI]:
Their Prophet said to them: “Allah hath appointed Talut as king over you.” They said: “How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?” He said: “Allah hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things.”

Allah (swt) appointed Talut over the people, and he encompassed to excellence of leadership knowledge and physical strength, they were placed in one man to lead the Ummah.

The Ul’il Amr would be a statesman, military commander and scholar rolled into one. The Sunni Ulema have conscientiously sought to split categories of Ul’il Amr because they took as their leaders individuals who did not excel in all three categories.  [End Quote]

Answer:

The Sunni position is very much clear and logical, but it’s the ignorance and misconception of ‘Shiapen’ due to which they weren’t able to see the clarity and rationality in the Sunni view. Had it been that ignorant ‘Shiapen’ reflected on the Shia system as implemented in countries like Iran, they would have realized that, they have no leg to stand against Ahlesunnah, since the same is being followed in their own back yard.   

Secondly, the example which ‘Shiapen’ used about Talut, is in fact against them, because when Talut was appointed as a King, He got authority over people, and He was in authority, over the affairs of people. Whereas, atleast Nine Shia Imams cannot be considered as Ulil Amr(those in authority), because they never had such authority. Starting from Imam Hussein(ra) whom they consider third Imam till Imam Hasan Askari(rah) whom they consider eleventh Imam, none of them possessed authority over the affairs of people of their time. So how could they be considered “those in authority”(Ulil Amr), when they weren’t having authority?

Moreover, present hidden twelfth Shia Imam, doesn’t possess any authority over the affairs of Shias, be it Shias of Iran or any other country. The Shia state of Iran, is run by Shia leaders who call themselves a Wali Al Amr( eg: Ayatollah Khomeini), this isn’t a secret, the world knows about it, Wali Al Amr is the one who has authority over the affairs of people of Iranian state and He neither was appointed by Allah, nor by Imam and nor is he infallible.  Shia scholars using the title Wali Al Amr have actually taken over the authority from the non-existing hidden twelfth Imam of Shias. It’s just an intellectual fraud of Shia scholars when they say, that presently their hidden twelfth Imam is the one in authority, because their hidden Imam neither has authority, nor right which the Ulil Amr would have; like how Talut had during his Kingship. So majority of Shia Imams are unfit to be considered as “Ulil Amr”(those in authority).

 

Argument 7:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] let us ponder over the comments of Imam Fakhradeen Razi who said as follows in his discussion of this verse that forms part of his critique against the Shia beliefs in Ulil Amr:

The type of obedience that Allah (swt) has ordered is unconditional obedience, it must relate to that individual who is ma’sum, if he was non ma’sum and could mistakes, then Allah (swt) would be telling us to follow such a person and adhere to him Allah (swt) told us to follow the Ul il Amr unconditionally, he MUST be Ma’sum, a fact that is testified to by this verse”.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 112

Razi then seeks to undo this Shia argument by stating that in the absence of an infallible personality, ijmaa of the Ummah takes precedence. [End Quote]

Answer:

‘Shiapen’ purposely left the strong points from the tafseer of Imam Fakhrudeen Razi, which destroyed the Shia views regarding Ulil Amr. Here is one important point from his tafseer.

Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi in his Tafsir says:
وثالثها : أنه قال : ( فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول ) ولو كان المراد بأولي الأمر الإمام المعصوم لوجب أن يقال : فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الإمام ، فثبت أن الحق تفسير الآية بما ذكرناه
[He said: “If you differ in anything then return it to Allah and the Messenger” and if what was meant by “ulil-amr” are the infallible Imams, then it would have been necessary to say: “If you differ in anything then return it to the Imam” so it is proven that the correct explanation of the verse is as we stated.] (Tafseer Al kabeer) commentary of verse 4:59).

 

Argument 8:

Shia website[Shiapen] continues and states:

[Quote]Whilst Razi attested that an infallible Imam does not exist, we have the word of our Prophet (s) who had made reference to such people. Ponder over this Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which asserts that there are people other than Prophets who are Ma’soom (infallible/protected). We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:

Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.’ ”

The word used in the above Hadith for “the protected person” is “Masoom”.The tradition clearly shows that these people are the prophets and their successors (Caliphs). The tradition also illuminates the fact that Allah bestows the position of Caliphate to the Caliph which implies that the infallible Caliph is the one who is assigned by Allah, not by people which corroborates Shia Aqeedah. [End Quote]

Answer: 

‘Shiapen’ have misinterpreted this hadeeth and have tried to deduce two points from this hadeeth, one that Caliph would be infallible, and that Caliph would be appointed by Allah, So let us expose their misinterpretation:

1.There is no infallibility discussed in this hadeeth.

The hadeeth says:{“But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.” }
This doesn’t mean that Caliphs are protected from every kind of sin. Because if we read the context of the hadeeth then we can clearly see that the protection mentioned there is regarding the specific issue that was mentioned, that is, from the advice of the evil advisers. Allah(swt) would protect that person from the advices of evil advisers, but this doesn’t mean protection from sins or mistakes they would commit. Thus trying to prove infallibility from this report is a failed attempt of Shiapen.

Moreover, the best explanation of a hadeeth is from a similar authentic hadeeth which would further elaborate the issue. Thus here is a similar authentic report which explains this issue.

إذا أراد الله بالأمير خيرا جعل له وزير صدق : إن نسي ذكره وإن ذكر أعانه وإذا أراد به غير ذلك جعل له وزير سوء : إن نسي لم يذكره وإن ذكر لم يعنه
Mother of believers `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “When Allah desires good for a ruler, He appoints for him a sincere adviser who will remind him if he forgets and helps him if he remembers. When Allah wishes for him the contrary, He appoints for him a bad adviser who will not remind him if he forgets, nor will he help him if he remembers.”
source: al-Albani said “SAHIH” in Sahih al-Jami`.

So from this similar authentic report we came to know that , Allah doesn’t says that all the Caliphs will be protected from such advisers.

We would like to give a small example to further simplify this:

If an Arab got attacked by a group of evil men while walking in the street, and suddenly out of nowhere a police patrol car shows up just on time to save him from their harm, That Arab would say: “`Asamani Allahu minhum.” “عصمني الله منهم”.

In English this means “Allah protected me from them.” or “Allah prevented me from them” because `Ismah means protection simply or prevention. So this narration quoted by Shiapen simply means in Arabic that Allah will protect the good ruler from the evil opinions of his advisers.

Here is it’s meaning from “Lisan al-`Arab”:
العِصْمة في كلام العرب: المَنْعُ.
وعِصْمةُ الله عَبْدَه: أن يَعْصِمَه مما يُوبِقُه. عَصَمه يَعْصِمُه عَصْماً: منَعَه ووَقَاه.

Easy examples to illustrate:
من حفظ عشر آيات من أول سورة الكهف عصم من فتنة الدجال
Abu al-Darda’ (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) says: “He who memorizes the first ten verses from Surat al-Kahf, Allah will protect/prevent(`Asamahu) him [from being harmed by] the Fitnah of al-Dajjal.
source: Sahih Muslim.

من قرأ آيةَ الكُرسيِّ . و وأوَّلَ حم المؤمنُ ، عُصِمَ ذلِك اليومَ من كلِّ سوءٍ
Abu Huraira (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) said: “He who recites Ayat-ul-Kursi. and the beginning of Ha-Meem al-Mu’min, he will be prevented/protected(`Usima) from any evil on that day.”
source: al-Futouhat al-Rabbaniyyah.

So infallibility in the understanding and language of the Arabs is one thing, and infallibility which the Shias talk about is a completely different matter altogether.

Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘Shiapen’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.

2.There is no evidence for the divine appointment of Caliphs in this hadeeth.

Here is a more accurate translation of this hadeeth:

عن أبي سعيد وأبي هريرة رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ‏:‏ “ما بعث الله من نبي، ولا استخلف من خليفة إلا كانت له بطانتان بطانة تأمره بالمعروف وتحضه عليه، وبطانة تأمره بالشر وتحضه عليه، والمعصوم من عصم الله”

Abu Sa`eed and Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “Allah neither raised up any Prophet nor did He authorize any person with ruling power but for whom there were two types of entourage: one enjoins upon him to do good and incites him to carry it out, and the other enjoins evil and goads him; and the protected (from the bad entourage) is the one whom Allah protects”.
source: Sahih al-Bukhari.

This report is not referring to divine appointment of Ruler in any way, rather the general belief regarding the will of Allah that, anyone who gets authority is from the will of Allah. Thus everyone who became Caliph(ABubakr(ra), Umar(ra), Uthman(ra), Ali(ra) etc), was because Allah granted them Caliphate. But this doesn’t mean it was divine appointment. Be it a Sinner ,tyrant and oppressor or righteous and Just Ruler,  Allah is the one who gives them Rulership.

This can be easily understood from the following similar narrations, where we will clearly see that, there is no divine appointment.

Narrated Ma’qil:  I heard the Prophet saying, “Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise.” (Sahi Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 264)

Messenger of Allah(saw) said: If God appointed anyone ruler over a people and he died while he was still treacherous to his people, God would forbid his entry into Paradise.(Sahi Muslim Book 33, Hadith 28)

Another example in this narration:
إنَّ بني إسرائيلَ لمَّا اعتدَوا وعلَوا وقتلوا الأنبياءَ بعثَ اللهُ عليهم مَلِكَ فارسَ
“bani Isra’eel when they transgressed and were arrogant and killed the prophets, Allah sent(ba`atha) on them the king of Persia…

Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘Shiapen’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.
Anyways to put a final nail in the coffin, let us present before readers an explicit narration where we will find that the Caliph after Prophet(saw) won’t be divinely appointed:
Sahi muslim 4.661: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”

This narration proves that there weren’t divinely appointed caliphs after Prophet(saw), otherwise Prophet(saw) would have commanded to obey the ones who are divinely appointed by Allah, or would have said, obey the one to whom I made caliph. But prophet(saw) said obey the one “who will be given the pledge of allegiance first”. This proves that neither there was any divinely appointed caliph after prophet(Saw) nor did Prophet(saw) appoint any caliph. Also notice that it is Allah who has put people under their rule.

 

Argument 9:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote]Sahih al Muslim, Kitab al Imara Book 020, Number 4518:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Holy prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Whoso obeys me obeys God, and whoso disobeys me disobeys God. Whoso obeys the commander (appointed by me) obeys me, and whoso disobeys the commander disobeys me. The same tradition transmitted by different persons omits the portion: And whose disobeys the commander disobeys me.

The Prophet (s) did not place any condition in this Hadith when it came to obeying the Leader. The words of the Prophet (s) make reference to absolute obedience, but why not? Why have the Sunni Ulema placed the condition that the leader must rule in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah? Why did Abu Bakr state that his leadership was restricted to this nature? [End Quote]

Answer:

‘Shiapen’ has used a hadeeth from Sahi Muslim, Kitab Al Imara(The Book on Government). Had they atleast looked at that Chapter title, from where they took this report then they would have never dared to quote it.

Imam Muslim the author of Sahi Muslim, brought this hadeeth under the chapter title, “(8)

باب وُجُوبِ طَاعَةِ الأُمَرَاءِ فِي غَيْرِ مَعْصِيَةٍ وَتَحْرِيمِهَا فِي الْمَعْصِيَةِ ‏‏

(Chapter: The obligation of obeying leaders in matters that do not involve sin, but it is forbidden to obey them in sinful matters)”.

Inorder to expose the deception of ‘Shiapen’, let us quote a report from the same chapter, where we find that Prophet(Saw) commanded that obedience to rulers is conditional.

Prophet(saw) said: It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither. listen to him nor should he obey his orders.( Sahi Muslim Book 20, Hadith 4533)

One more hadeeth from the same chapter proving that obedience to ruler is conditional, contrary to what ‘Shiapen’ tried to portray:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Ali who said: The Mersenger of Allah(saw) sent an expedition and appointed over the Mujahids a man from the Ansar. (While making the appointment), he ordered that his work should be listened to and obeyed. They made him angry in a matter. He said: Collect for me dry wood. They collected it for him. Then he said: Kindle a fire. They kindled (the fire). Then he said: Didn’t the Messenger of Allah (saw) order you to listen to me and obey (my orders)? They said: Yes. He said: Enter the fire. The narrator says: (At this), they began to look at one another and said: We fled from the fire to (find refuge with) the Messenger of Allah (saw) (and now you order us to enter it). They stood quiet until his anger cooled down and the fire went out. When they returned, they related the incident to the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: If they had entered it, they would not have come out. Obedience (to the commander) is obligatory only in what is good.(Sahi Muslim Book 20, Hadith 4536)

So it’s not the Sunni Scholars or Abubakr(ra) who set this rule about the obedience to ruler being conditional, but rather it’s Prophet Muhammad(Saw) who taught this rule to the believers.

 

Argument 10:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

 [Quote] Prophet (s) himself who said:

“Whoever obeys ‘Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ‘Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah”

  1. Kanz ul Ummal, Page 614, Hadith numbers 32974 & 32977
  2. Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol. 3, Page 128
  3. Riyadh ul Nadira, Vol. 3, Page 110

Maula ‘Ali (as) is the absolute Imam, that individual whose obedience is unconditional, which is why Rasulullah (s) compared his obedience to be on par with obeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). Maula ‘Ali (as) was that individual that never erred away from the Qur’an and Sunnah and was always praised by Allah (swt)[End Quote]

Answer: 

Sheikh Albani said this hadith is weak(unreliable) in “Silsila ad daifa” (#4892). Chain of this hadith is weak, in it Yahya ibn Yala. Shaykh Albani said that it’s Aslami. The problem is that in the same time there were two narrators with similar name. Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami, and he was weak, and Yahya ibn Yala at-Taymi, and he was good. Hassan ibn Hammad, next narrator in this chain use to narrate from both of them. The problem is solved by next narrator in chain. Ibn Yala narrated it from Basam ibn Abdullah as-Sayrafe. Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (7/233) in the bio of Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami cited this hadith via the same chain:  Hassan ibn Hammad as-Sadjadat – Yahya ibn Yala – Bassam ibn Abdullah as-Sayrafe. In the very same place of that book, ibn Adi noticed that this hadith from Bassam isn’t known in the transmission of any one other than Yahya ibn Yala.

In “Mizanul itidal” (4/415/#9657) regarding this ibn Yala we can see scholars saying: Abu Khatim: Weak. Buhkari: His ahadeth are mixed.

Moreover, even though the hadeeth is weak, yet it can be accepted if understood properly. Every hadeeth has a context, and the context of this hadeeth most probably would be that, Ali(ra) was appointed as commander over an Army. Thus Prophet(saw) commanded people to obey Ali(ra), as He(saw) said the same for the commanders in general.

Holy prophet (may peace be upon him) said: Whoso obeys me obeys God, and whoso disobeys me disobeys God. Whoso obeys the commander (appointed by me) obeys me, and whoso disobeys the commander disobeys me. (Sahih al Muslim, Book 020, Number 4518).

But as we have proven before that this doesn’t mean that obedience to commanders is unconditional, rather it is conditional, as we find in the following reports:

Prophet(saw) said: It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither. listen to him nor should he obey his orders.( Sahi Muslim Book 20, Hadith 4533)

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Ali who said: The Mersenger of Allah(saw) sent an expedition and appointed over the Mujahids a man from the Ansar. (While making the appointment), he ordered that his work should be listened to and obeyed. They made him angry in a matter. He said: Collect for me dry wood. They collected it for him. Then he said: Kindle a fire. They kindled (the fire). Then he said: Didn’t the Messenger of Allah (saw) order you to listen to me and obey (my orders)? They said: Yes. He said: Enter the fire. The narrator says: (At this), they began to look at one another and said: We fled from the fire to (find refuge with) the Messenger of Allah (saw) (and now you order us to enter it). They stood quiet until his anger cooled down and the fire went out. When they returned, they related the incident to the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: If they had entered it, they would not have come out. Obedience (to the commander) is obligatory only in what is good.(Sahi Muslim Book 20, Hadith 4536).

 

Argument 11:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

 [Quote] Maula ‘Ali (as) is the absolute Imam, that individual whose obedience is unconditional, which is why Rasulullah (s) compared his obedience to be on par with obeying Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). Maula ‘Ali (as) was that individual that never erred away from the Qur’an and Sunnah and was always praised by Allah (swt), little wonder Imam Suyuti recorded that Ibn Abbas narrated:
“Allah did not reveal an Ayah beginning O you who believe..’ but that Ali is its Amir and its eminence. Allah reproached the companions of Muhammad in more than one place but he never mentioned ‘Ali but with approval”.
History of the Khalifas who took the right way, page 179 English translation of Tarikh ul Khulafa by al Hafidh Jalaluddeen as Suyuti, rendered into English by Abdassamad Clarke  [End Quote]

Answer:

This narration  was reported by Abu Nu’aym and Ibn ‘Asakir. It contains Musa bin ‘Uthman Al-Hadhrami who was declared matrook(abandoned). Ad-Da’eefa (4929).

Al-matrook Linguistically means -Abandoned, renounced. Technically -That in whose isnad(chain) is someone accused of lying.

Reasons for accusing a narrator of lying: 1) That the hadith is only reported through him, and it contradicts established principles. 2) That he is known to lie in his everyday speech.

Levels of weakness (the weakest first -this being the arrangement of al-Haafiz ibn Hajar): 1) al-mawdoo(fabricated)’ 2) al-matrook(abandoned).

And if Shiapen wants to rely on any kind of report then, here is a gift for them.

Prophet(saw) said: “It is not fitting for people among whom is Abubakr to be led by anyone other than him”.(Reported by At-Tirmidhi)[Biographies of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, page 35) .

 

Argument 12:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

 [Quote] We accordingly deem Imam ‘Ali (as) the infallible Imam appointed by the Prophet (s) to lead the Ummah, his closeness and perfection can be reflected through the below traditions (and other similar ones):

  • Me and ‘Ali were created from one Nur
  • ‘Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali

Maula ‘Ali was from the Ahl’ul bayt (as), that included the Prophet (s), Hasan, Hussain (as) and Fatima. It was honour of this household that Allah (swt) revealed the verse of purification, and Suyuti in his commentary of this verse after narrating the descent upon these individuals in Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 377-378:

‘Me and my Ahl’ul bayt are free from sins’
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 377-378  [End Quote]

Answer:

None of the reports used by ‘Shiapen’ refers towards infallibility. However since ‘Shiapen’ has used these three reports, then we shall be dealing them for benefit of readers.

(i)Me and ‘Ali were created from one Nur.

Answer: This report and all the ones similar to it are fabricated(Mawdoo) reports.

Here is the chain for this:

حدثنا الحسن قثنا أحمد بن المقدام العجلي قثنا الفضيل بن عياض قثنا ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن زاذان عن سلمان

Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal in Fadhail as Sahaba, Hadith No 1130 vol 2 page 662

a) The Muhaqqiq of the book said

موضوع . الحسن بن علي البصري متهم بالكذب الباقين ثقات

Fabricated: Al Hasan bin Ali Al basree was accused of lying [Notes of Fadhail e Sahaba under this hadeeth]

b) Ibn Adi said

يضع الحديث 

Fabricator of hadeeth [AL KAMIL vol 3 page 195]

c) Ibn e Hibban Mentioned him in his Kitab AL Majruheen vol 1 page 292

d) Dahabee said regarding him in Meezan al Aitedaal

قال الدارقطني: متروك، وفرق بينه وبين سميه العدوى، فأما ابن عدى فقال: الحسن بن على بن صالح أبو سعيد العدوى البصري يضع الحديث.

Darqutni said he is rejected Ibn e Adi said Hasan bin Ali bin Saleh Abu saeed al adwi al basree Fabricator of hadeeth

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The angels were created from light, and Iblees was created from smokeless fire, and Adam (peace be upon him) was created from what has been described to you.” Narrated by Muslim, 2996.

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said : This indicates that the well known hadeeth that is in circulation among people – “The first thing that Allaah created was the light of your Prophet, O Jaabir” – is false, and so are other similar ahaadeeth which say that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was created from light(Nur). This hadeeth clearly indicates that the angels are the only ones who are created from light, not Adam and his sons, so pay heed and do not be negligent. [al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (458)]

(ii) Ali is from me and I am from ‘Ali.

Answer: This statement doesn’t proves infallibility because this statement wasn’t specific to Ali(ra), rather it was said for several others.

(a). Prophet(saw) used similar statement for people:

حدثنا هارون بن إسحق الهمداني حدثني محمد بن عبد الوهاب عن مسعر عن أبي حصين عن الشعبي عن عاصم العدوي عن كعب بن عجرة قال
خرج إلينا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ونحن تسعة خمسة وأربعة أحد العددين من العرب والآخر من العجم فقال اسمعوا هل سمعتم أنه سيكون بعدي أمراء فمن دخل عليهم فصدقهم بكذبهم وأعانهم على ظلمهم فليس مني ولست منه وليس بوارد علي الحوض ومن لم يدخل عليهم ولم يعنهم على ظلمهم ولم يصدقهم بكذبهم فهو مني وأنا منه وهو وارد علي الحوض
قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث صحيح غريب
It was narrated from Ka’b bin ‘Ujrah who said: “The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) came out to us, we were made up of nine; five and four. The first of the numbers for the Arabs, and the latter for the non-Arabs. He said: ‘Listen, have you heard that after me there will leaders, whoever enters upon them and condones to their lies, and supports them in their oppression, then he is not from me and I am not from him, and he shall not drink with me from the Hawd. And whoever does not enter upon them, nor help them in their oppression, nor condones to their lies, then he is from me, and I am from him, and he shall drink with me at the Hawd.'” (Sahih) (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2259)
Comment: In other words, the narration that Ali is from the Prophet (pbuh) and vice versa is not specific to Ali, but it is something shared by anyone who performs the actions above.

(b). Prophet(saw) uses similar statement regarding Ash’aris :

Narrated Abu Musa:The Prophet(saw) said, “When the people of Ash`ari tribe ran short of food during the holy battles, or the food of their families in Medina ran short, they would collect all their remaining food in one sheet and then distribute it among themselves equally by measuring it with a bowl. So, these people are from me, and I am from them.”(Sahi Bukhari Vol. 3, Book 44, Hadith 666)

(c). Prophet(saw) uses similar statement regarding Sahabi Julaibib(ra) :
حدثنا إسحق بن عمر بن سليط حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن ثابت عن كنانة بن نعيم عن أبي برزة
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان في مغزى له فأفاء الله عليه فقال لأصحابه هل تفقدون من أحد قالوا نعم فلانا وفلانا وفلانا ثم قال هل تفقدون من أحد قالوا نعم فلانا وفلانا وفلانا ثم قال هل تفقدون من أحد قالوا لا قال لكني أفقد جليبيبا فاطلبوه فطلب في القتلى فوجدوه إلى جنب سبعة قد قتلهم ثم قتلوه فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فوقف عليه فقال قتل سبعة ثم قتلوه هذا مني وأنا منه هذا مني وأنا منه قال فوضعه على ساعديه ليس له إلا ساعدا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال فحفر له ووضع في قبره ولم يذكر غسلا
About the sahabi Julaibeeb: He is from me and I am from him.( Sahih Muslim Book 031, Hadith Number 6045. )

Likewise Shia Muhaddith Al-Kulaini relates (2/170, Kitab Al-Eeman wa Al-Kufr) a narration, which is Hasan as per the verdict of Al-Majlisi, through Imam Ja’af As-Sadiq in which he said regarding relation of Muslims with each other, “He is from you, and you are from him”.

So it’s clear that, this statement is not a merit that is only specific for Ali, thus Shiapen have made a blunder by trying to use it as a proof for infallibility of Ali(ra).

(iii) ‘Me and my Ahl’ul bayt are free from sins’

Answer: This hadith isn’t authentic, but fabricated. (Silsila ad-daeefa 5495). These words are part of bigger narration. Imam Abu Hatim ar-Razi declared this hadith to be falsehood (Baatil). [‘Ilal al-Hadeeth (6/490)]
Ibn Katheer, after recording it, said, “In this hadeeth there is weakness (gharabah) and oddness (nakarah).” [al-Bidayah (3/366)]
‘Abayah bin Rib’iyy was unreliable. [Lisan al-Meezan (3/247)]

This hadith along with chain present in “Dalail” (1/92/#77, shamela) by Beyhaki. Starting from Yaqub ibn Shayba al-Fasawe it runs:

حدثني يحيى بن عبد الحميد ، قال : حدثنا قيس ، عن الأعمش ، عن عباية بن ربعي ، عن ابن عباس
Narrated to me Yahya ibn Abdulhamid, said: narrated to us Qays from al-Amash from Abayat ibn Rabia from ibn Abbas.

Everyone except al-Amash discredited.  Ibn Rabia was from qulatu shia. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/387). Al-Amash himself mudalis, and again narrated in anana form. Qays, that’s ibn Rabia. Daraqutni and Yahya said he’s weak. Nasai said he’s abandoned. He was shia with bad memory and rejected narrations in pocket. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/393). Yahya ibn Abdulhamid al-Hamani was accused in lie. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/392)

Moreover, the verse of tatheer(33:33) cannot be used for infallibility of Ahlelbayt, as we have proved in a detailed article on this issue. So please refer our article; Does verse of tatheer(33:33) makes anyone infallible?

 

Argument 13:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] Al-Juwayni reports from Abdullah ibn Abbas (r) from the Prophet (s) who said:

“I am the chief of the Prophets and Ali ibn Abi Talib is the chief of successors, and after me my successors shall be twelve, the first of them being Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last of them being Al Mahdi.”

“Certainly my Caliphs and my legatees and the Proofs of Allah upon his creatures after me are twelve. The first of them is my brother and the last of them is my (grand) son.” He was asked: “O Messenger of Allah, who is your brother?” He said, “Ali ibn Abi Talib” Then they asked, “And who is your son?” The Holy Prophet (s) replied, “Al Mahdi, the one who will fill the earth with justice and equity like it would be brimming with injustice and tyranny. And by the One Who has raised me as a warner and a give of good tidings, even if a day remains for the life of this world, the Almighty Allah will prolong this day to an extent till he sends my son Mahdi, then he will make Ruhullah ‘Isa ibn Maryam (a) to descend and pray behind him (Mahdi). And the earth will be illuminated by his radiance. And his power will reach to the east and the west.”

“I and Ali and Hasan and Hussain and nine of the descendants of Hussain are the purified ones and the inerrant.”
Fara’id al-Simtayn, Mu’assassat al-Mahmudi li-Taba’ah, Beirut 1978, page 160.

Whilst the Nawasib will reject the notion of Ibn Abbas believing in the doctrine of divine Imamate his narration in Fara’id al-Simtayn affirms that he was fully aware of this belief. [End Quote]

Answer:

That is not Imam al-Haramayn `Abd al-Malik ibn `Abd Allah ibn Yusuf al-Juwayni (d. 478) as some might be mistaken. The author of Fara’id al-Simtayn is Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Himawayh al-Juwayni (d. 722) (also called Al-Hamweeni) who was a Rafidi:

He has been included in the book “Ayan Al-Shia” , an Encyclodia of Shia prominent figures, by Al-Ameen Al-Amili. Aga Buzurgh Tehrani, in “Thayl Kashf Al-Dhunoon” p. 70, pointed out that the chief of the Mongols, Ghazan, embraced Islam through him and became a Shiite, and also his brother Shah Khudabanda who made his Shiasm apparent. Amongst the sheikhs that he was taught by, are Ibn Al-Muttahir Al-Hili and Khawaja Nusair Al-Din Al-Tusi. These are two prominent 12er figures.

He declares his Shiism at the beginning of his book:

في مقدمة كتابه بعد ذكر النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ما نصه:

( وانتجب له أمير المؤمنين عليا أخا وعونا وردءا وخليلا ورفيقا ووزيرا ، وصيره على أمر الدين والدنيا له مؤازرا . . . وأنزل في شأنه : { إنما وليكم الله ورسوله . . . } تعظيماً لشأنه . . . وصلى الله على محمد عبده ونبيه . . . وعلى إمام الأولياء وأولاده الأئمة الأصفياء الذين أذهب الله عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا . . . والحمد لله الذي ختم النبوة والرسالة بمحمد المصطفى . . . وبدأ الولاية من أخيه وفرع صنو أبيه المنزل من موسى فضيلته النبوية منزلة هارون ، وصيه الرضى المرتضى علي ( عليه السلام ) باب مدينة العلم المخزون . . . وآزره بالأئمة المعصومين من ذريته أهل الهداية والتقوى . . . ثم ختم الولاية بنجله الصالح المهتدي الحجة القائم بالحق . . . “

 

This is what Imam Al Dahabi thinks of Juwayni:

قول الذهبي رحمه الله في الحمويني الذي نقله الزركلي في الأعلام 1/63 : (شيخ خراسان ، كان حاطب ليل – يعني في رواية الحديث – جمع أحاديث ثنائيات وثلاثيات ورباعيات من الاباطيل المكذوبة . وعلى يده أسلم غازان).

In brief Al Dahabi says that Kharasani is spreading fabricated lies.

Thus the book Fara’id al-Simtayn that is in print is a pure Shia forgery.

Here is the Arabic text for the narration quoted by Shiapen.

ـ أخبرني مفيد الدين أبو جعفر محمد بن عليّ بن أبي الغنائم ابن الجهم الحليّ رحمه (الله إجازة) ، قال : أنبأنا القاضي خطير الدين محمود بن محمد بن الحسين بن عبد الجبّار الطوسي ، عن عمّه زين الدين عبد الجبّار ، عن أبيه ، عن الصفيّ أبي تراب ابن الداعي ، عن أبي محمد جعفر بن محمد الدريستي ، عن الشيخ المفيد محمد بن محمد بن النعمان الحارثي ، عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بابويه القمّي (1) قال : حدّثنا جعفر بن محمد بن مسرور (رضي الله عنه) ، قال : حدّثنا الحسين بن محمد بن عامر ، عن المعلّى محمد البصري ، عن جعفر بن سليمان ، عن عبد الله بن الحكيم ، عن أبيه ، عن سعيد بن جُبير :

عن عبد الله بن عبّاس ، قال : قال رسول الله [ صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم ] : إنّ خلفائي وأوصيائي وحجج الله على الخلق بعدي لاثنا عشر ، أوّلهم أخي وآخرهم ولدي

This narration has individuals like al-Mufid, al-Saduq, in its chain. Who are well know Rafidi scholars. On top of that, it has several other flaws such as `Abd Allah ibn al-Hakam is unknown — a fact even acknowledged by Shi`i scholars (al-Mufid min Mu`jam [332]), which makes it unreliable.

The text of the narration is also rejected for obvious reasons, it goes against historical facts, like even the Shias weren’t aware about Imamah, because after the death of several Imams, new groups used to emerge within Shiism, each believing in the Imamate of different son of the former Imam.

The conclusion is that it is a forgery and thus requires no interpretation.

 

Argument 14:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] It is not for me to refer to specific events, just scan through the books of Islamic history yourselves and look at the consequences of believing in rulership by man not Allah (swt) and you will see a history of tyranny, violence, corruption, torture, killing and banishment of critics.

Historically the majority Muslims faced with evil, Fasiq leaders from amongst the Banu Ummayya and Abbasids, so what were the people to do? Were the people to oppose them or remain silent? The answer has been recorded in depth by the Sunni Ulema, for e.g. we read in Ahl’ul Sunah’s books of aqeedah, Sharh Aqaid Nafsee (Urdu translation) page 102:

“If a Fasiq becomes an imam he is a sinner, it is not permissible to rebel against him”. If a Fasiq becomes a King, then he is a sinner. The people must obey him, rebelling against him is haraam”.

“If a woman or Slave, disabled, or non scholar attains position their obedience is obligatory. Other than adherence Islam on Imamate no other conditions such as they be from the family of ‘Ali or Banu Hashim, or superior of that time, or infallibility conditions held by the Shi’a. Imamate is not nullified by his being a Faajir or Fasiq, rather his Imamate remains forever. If the Imam becomes an indulger of sins of a greater or lesser state, or inflicts injustice, it’s not a duty of Muslims to remove him, since this carries the risk of Fitnah and bloodshed, when infallibility is not a condition then his being a sinner is an option. That is why the Salaf after the rightly guided Khalifas, obey Fasiq Imams, praying Juma and Eid prayers with them, so that they could counsel them. Bukhari and Muslim narrate from 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”
Sharh Aqaid Nafsee (Urdu translation) page 102. [End Quote]

Answer:

People who are deprived of faith and are ignorant about the teachings of Prophet(saw) are bound to raise such arguments. However, the ones who are aware of the teachings of Prophet(saw) consider it to be an issue related to ‘Al Qadaa wa Al Qadr’. In Al Qadr wa Al-qadaa , Al Qadr means the predestination of things and when the predestined matter occurs then it is Al-qadaa.

Hadith of Jabir: ‘No slave of Allah will truly believe until he believes in Al Qadr its good and bad from Allah, until he knows that what has befallen him was not going to miss him and that what missed him was not going to befallen him.'(Tirmidhi).

Regarding the rule of tyrants and oppressors over the Ummah, then those who have the knowledge regarding the Sunnah of Prophet(saw), they know the answer.

تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا جبرية فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج نبوة . ثم سكت . . .
الراوي: النعمان بن بشير المحدث: الألباني – المصدر: تخريج مشكاة المصابيح – الصفحة أو الرقم: 5306
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده حسن

Al-Nauman ibn Basheer told us: The Prophet PBUH said: ‘Prophethood will remain in you for as long as God decides for it to remain and then God will remove it when He decides to remove it. After Prophet hood, there will be a Caliphate on the style of prophethood and it will exist for as long as God decides for it to exist, then He will remove it when He decides to remove it. Then there will be a kingdom in which people will face trials and tribulations and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. After this, there will be an oppressive kingdom and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. Then there will once again be a rule on the style of prophet hood. After saying this, the Prophet (pbuh) was silent.’
source: Takhreej Mishat al Masabih #5306.
grading: SAHIH and famous narrated through many chains.

Thus we Ahlesunnah as people of Emaan(faith) believe it to be Qadr of Allah, regarding the rule of tyrants and oppressors over Ummah. However if this report doesn’t seem to be satisfactory answer to Shiapen or they believe the ahadeeth from books of Ahlesunnah aren’t binding upon them, then we would like to present the answer for their argument from their own Shia hadeeth. Though the answer is ridiculous, but this should be binding upon Shiapen.

Shia leader, ibn Babaweih al-Qummi narrates in “`Ilal-al-Shara’i`” 1/153-154:

ابن بابويه القمي في كتابه ( علل الشرائع ) ( 1 / 153 – 154 ) باب رقم ( 122 ) ( العلة التي من أجلها ترك أمير المؤمنين مجاهدة أهل الخلاف ) :[ 14 – حدثنا محمد بن الحسن قال : حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الصفار ، عن يعقوب بن يزيد ، عن حماد بن عيسى عن ربعي عن فضيل بن يسار قال : قلت لأبي جعفر أو لأبي عبد الله عليهما السلام حين قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لمن كان الأمر بعده ؟ فقال لنا أهل البيت قلت : فكيف صار في غيركم ؟ قال إنك قد سألت فافهم الجواب إن الله تبارك وتعالى لما علم أنه يفسد في الأرض وتنكح الفروج الحرام ويحكم بغير ما أنزل الله تبارك وتعالى أراد أن يلي ذلك غيرنا ].
[Muhammad bin al-Hasan told us, Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Saffar told us, from Ya`qoub bin Yazid, from Hamad bin `Isa, from Rub`i, from Fudayl bin Yasar, that he said: “I said to abu Ja`far or abi `Abdillah (as) when the messenger (SAWS) passed away, who was supposed to be given authority after?” he said: “To us Ahl-ul-Bayt.” I said: “So how did it end up with the others?” he replied: “You have asked now understand the answer. Allah most high knew that there would be corruption in this earth, and that forbidden adultery will be done, and that there shall be ones who rule with other than the rule of Allah, so He most high wanted others to be responsible for it.“]

Similarly Shia leader, al-Sheikh al-Tusi narrates in his “Amali” pg.226:

محمد بن الحسن الطوسي في كتابه ( الأمالي ) ص 226 : 395 / 45 – أخبرنا محمد بن محمد ، قال : أخبرنا جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه ( رحمه الله ) قال : حدثنا أبو الحسن علي بن حاتم ، عن الحسن بن عبد الله ، عن الحسن بن موسى ، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي نجران ، ومحمد بن عمر بن يزيد ، جميعا ، عن حماد بن عيسى ، عن ربعي ، عن الفضيل بن يسار ، قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) : لمن كان الأمر حين قبض رسول الله ؟ قال : لنا أهل البيت . فقلت : فكيف صار في تيم وعدي ؟ قال : إنك سالت فافهم الجواب ، إن الله ( تعالى ) لما كتب أن يفسد في الأرض ، وتنكح الفروج الحرام ، ويحكم بغير ما أنزل الله ، خلا بين أعدائنا وبين مرادهم من الدنيا حتى دفعونا عن حقنا ، وجرى الظلم على أيديهم دوننا
[Muhammad bin Muhammad told us, Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Qawlaweih told us, abu al-Hasan `Ali bin Hatim told us, from al-Hasan bin `Abdullah, from al-Hasan bin Musa, from `Abdul-Rahman bin abi Najran, and Muhammad bin `Umar bin Yazid, all, from Rub`i, from Fudayl bin Yasar, that he said: I said to abu `Abdillah (as): “This position was given to who after the messenger (SAWS) passed away?” he replied: “To us, Ahl-ul-Bayt.” I said:”Then how is it that it fell in the hands of (the tribes of) Taym and `Adi?” he said: “You have asked so now you need to understand the answer. Allah most high when he wished for corruption to happen in this earth, and that the forbidden adultery would take place, and that there would be those who do not rule according to the law of Allah, He then allowed our enemies to achieve their goal in life and push us away from our rightful place, so that all of this oppression would be happening under their authority not ours.“]

Thus we hope that Shiapen have got a satisfactory clarification for their argument from these Shia reports.

 

Argument 15:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] Our view on the Hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas is that it was coined by the Mullah’s on the payroll of unjust rulers so as to ensure that public remain docile and subservient. [End Quote]

Answer:

This is a cheap tactic of ‘Shiapen’, when they find that an authentic Sunni hadeeth destroys their home-made concepts, then they try to undermine its reliability by making claims like ‘it was coined by the Mullah’s on the payroll of unjust rulers’. It is infact like “The pot calling the kettle black” , because it were the Rafidah(present day twelver Shia), who were fabricators of ahadeeth(narrations).

Hafidh shaykh-ul islam ibn Hajar said:

واما الفضايل فلا تحصى كم وضع الرافضة في فضل اهل البيت
“As for narrations about /fadail/, it’s impossible to count how many of them were fabricated by rawafidh about ahlel-bayt. Source: “Lisanul mizan” 1/13.

Al-Hafidh Abu Yala al-Khaleele said: “Rawafidh fabricated 300 000 narrations about Ale and ahlel-bayt”. Source: ibn Qayum “Al manar wa munif fi saheeh wa dhaif” p 292, Darul “Karincha”.

We would like to request esteemed readers to  refer a detail answer on similar argument by Shias, Hence please refer the answer under title “Where the likes of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim influenced and distorted by Banu Abbas and Banu Ummayah?”  in the article.

 

Argument 16:

Shia website[Shiapen] states:

[Quote] Even if we give this a small analysis it becomes clear that if the Head of State appoints a few hundred people, and they appoint an Amir, and he starts to do bad deeds rather than gather a momentum and oppose him, they must observe patience. The reality is that the Ahl’ul Sunnah have developed a thinking relying on Hadith giving bayya is crucial failure to do so will mean you die as a kafir. The fear has led to the creation of a school of thought that is interested in giving bayya, not interested in the character of the Imam. [End Quote]

Answer:

Ahle Sunnah believes that however be the ruler appointed over them, it’s Allah who gave him authority, this doesn’t mean that it was divine appointment but rather it’s due to the Qadr of Allah. And as we already quoted the authentic hadeeth regarding the Prophecy of rulership over the Ummah, we found that the Ummah’s authority will go through different kinds of Rulers, from rightly guided to oppressors.

Regarding Shiapen’s argument that Ahlesunnah are not interested in the character of the Imam, then we would like to say them that, Imam Hasan(ra) must have seen and was convinced with the character of Hazrat Muawiya(ra), whom  Hasan(ra) gave the authority over the Muslim community and also gave him allegiance.

We read in Al Bidaya wa al nihaya :

Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) paid allegiance to Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) at 40 H, that is why it is called Aamul Jamaat (عام الجماعۃ – the year of jamaat)  , and Ibn Jarir and other scholars say that it happened at the beginning of 41 H.( Al Bidaya wa al nihaya, Volume 8, Page 26-27)

It was narrated by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his “Isaba” (1/499) from the way: Yaqub ibn Sufyan – Saeed ibn Mansur– Awn ibn Musa from Hilal ibn Habbab, which said: “al-Hasan gathered chiefs of people of Iraq in this house – house of Madain. He said to them: “You have pledged allegiance to me. You gave me a word and pledged allegiance upon terms that you are going to make peace treaty with whom I would make such. And you would fight against those whom I would fight with. Now I am making pledge of allegiance to Muawiyah, listen to him, and obey him”. [Isaba” (1/499)] 

As far as allegiance of Imam Hasan to Hazrat Muawiya is concerned, this is not only present in Sunni books, but it’s even present in shia books.

Suleman went to Hasan and said “Our surprise knows no bounds when we see that you have rendered allegiance to Muawiyah in face of the fact that you had a strong army from Kufa, of 40,000 men, and warriors from the people of Hijaz and Basrah. If I was in your place, I would not have done like this. Hasan replied “I am not going to say anything besides that God has blessed us with peace in unity. (Maqtal Abi Makhnaf, Page 13) (Imam Hasan, Muhammad Ali Al Haj Salmin , page 157)

It is stated in Al Ash sharah , that Sadeer said that he went to Imam Baqir once and asked “How can it be possible in face of the fact that Hasan rendered allegiance to Muawiyah.” Baqir said “Keep silent, Sadeer. What Hasan did was good.”[ Imam Hasan, Muhammad Ali Al Haj Salmin, Page 166]

Not only, Imam Hasan(ra) but even Imam Hussein did the same. He(ra) joined the armies during the rule of  Hazrat Muawiya(ra) .
البداية والنهاية، لابن كثير، 8 /161
ولما توفي الحسن كان الحسين يفد إلى معاوية في كل عام فيعطيه ويكرمه ، وقد كان في الجيش الذين غزوا القسطنطينية مع ابن معاوية يزيد ، في سنة إحدى وخمسي

When Al-Hassan died, Al-Hussein used to visit Mu’awiyah EACH year and Mu’awiyah used to honour him and spend on him, Al-Hussein was also in the army [of Mu’awiyah] that opened Al-Qistantiniyyah (the capital city of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire back then) along with the son of Mu’awiyah, Yazeed in the year 51 after Hijra.(Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihaya of Ibn Katheer 8/161).


تاريخ الإسلام، للذهبي، 5/ 104
وقال ابن عساكر : وفد الحسين على معاوية وغزا القسطنطينية مع يزيد .
“And Ibn Asakir says: Al-Hussein came to Mu’awiyah (who was the Khalifah) and fought under his leadership along with Yazeed and opened constantinople”. (Tarikh Al-Islam by Al-Dhahabi, 104/5).

Interestingly, here is the first condition set by Imam Hasan(ra), before handing over the authority of the Muslim Ummah to Hazrat Muawiya(ra) and before giving him the allegiance.

We read in famous shia book Kashaful ghummah
سم الله الرحمان الرحيم هذا ما صالح عليه الحسن بن على بن أبي طالب معاوية بن أبي سفيان صالحه على أن يسلم إليه ولاية أمر المسلمين على ان يعمل فيهم بكتاب الله تعالى وسنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وسيرة الخلفاء الراشدين
The conditions of peace between Hasan and Muawiya are described: In the name of Allah , the beneficent, the most Merciful. These are the conditions of peace between Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan. The first condition is that you should follow Quran , Sunnah and the seerah of the righteous Caliphs.

Ali bin Esa Al-Arbili , Kashaful Ghumma vol. 2, p. 45Same thing is also present in Ibn `Aqil, al-Nasa’ih al-Kafiya, p. 156.
Similar reports are present in Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115.. Jila ul Ayun, Page 232

We would like to ask ‘Shiapen’ a thought provoking question: If at all, taking authority over Muslim Ummah by Muawiya(ra), was against Quran, as according to Shias He was not Ulil Amr, then How could Imam Hasan(ra) expect him to follow Quran, When his appointment itself is against Quran?

Moreover, ‘Shiapen’ tries to mock the view of Ahlesunnah that one should remain patient even if their ruler is oppressive, Shiapen states{rather than gather a momentum and oppose him, they must observe patience”}. If this teaching is objectionable in the view of Shiapen, then would they dare present before the world, the Sunnah of their divinely appointed Imams towards the oppressive Rulers?  Imams like Muhammad Baqir, Jafar Sadiq, till Hasan Askari, did they show momentum and opposition when they faced the rule of Tyrants over them, as the Shiapen prescribes or did they remain patient? If they remained patient then doesn’t this shows that they were following the creed of Ahlesunnah.

 

Argument 17:

Shia stated:

[Quote] In this verse(4:59) 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.[End Quote]

Answer:

The verse commands obedience to those in authority, no one has denied it, but if one gives a proper look at the complete verse then it will be clear that the obedience to those in authority is conditional, as even proven from authentic narrations of Prophet(Saw).

In the tafseer of this ayah(4:59), the Mufassireen explained that absolute obedience is to Allah and the messenger and this absolute obedience is not given to “those in authority ”, 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. Moreover, the verse then continues and commands to refer Allah(swt) and Prophet(saw) during a disagreement, this excludes Ulil Amr from the ones who are to be referred during disagreement, this itself is a proof that obedience to them is conditional. And this is further explained by the authentic Prophetic narrations, which we quoted in the ‘Part 1’ of these articles.

 

Argument 18:

A common Shia argument is that:

[Quote]Imam Fakhru’d-din Razi in his Tafsir admits that if we do not regard the ‘uli’l-amr’ as infallible, it would be, in effect, affirming two contradictions as being true. Your own Sunni ulema have confirmed that these qualities were possessed exclusively by the twelve Imams. The Holy verse of Purification (33:33) also confirms this fact. [End Quote]

Answer:

This is lie attributed to Imam Fakhr uddin Razi. He was merely quoting the Shia views inorder to refute them, one who have read this Tafsir of Imam Razi, knows this very well.

We find that al-Razi in his conclusion says:

أن أعمال الأمراء والسلاطين موقوفة على فتاوى العلماء ، والعلماء في الحقيقة أمراء الأمراء ، فكان حمل لفظ أولي الأمر عليهم أولى ، وأما حمل الآية على الأئمة المعصومين على ما تقوله الروافض ففي غاية البعد
[The decisions of the rulers rely on the verdicts of the scholars, and the scholars in reality have authority over the rulers, so explaining “ulil-amr” as scholars is given priority,  as for the Rafidhah who explained it as the infallible Imams, this saying is very far from the truth…]

وثالثها : أنه قال : ( فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول ) ولو كان المراد بأولي الأمر الإمام المعصوم لوجب أن يقال : فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الإمام ، فثبت أن الحق تفسير الآية بما ذكرناه 
[Thirdly: He said: “If you differ in anything then return it to Allah and the Messenger” and if what was meant by “ulil-amr” are the infallible Imams, then it would have been necessary to say: “If you differ in anything then return it to the Imam” so it is proven that the correct explanation of the verse is as we stated.]( Tafseer Al-Kabeer)

This proves that the Shia argument is a blatant lie attributed to Imam Fakhruddin Razi.

 

Argument 19:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ عَصَانِي ‏”‏‏.

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) said, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.”[Sahih al-Bukhari #7137]

Answer:

The hadeeth was mistranslated. It doesn’t have the words “I appoint” in Arabic. The translator added it probably because even he knew it’s about the governors whom Prophet(saws) appointed. For better understanding let us quote the same hadeeth from two different books, which were translated by another translators.

We read:

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَخْبَرَهُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّهُ قَالَ ‏ “‏ مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي وَمَنْ عَصَى أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ عَصَانِي ‏”‏ ‏.

Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: Whoso obeys me obeys God; and whose disobeys me disobeys God. Whoso obeys my commander obeys me, and whoso disobeys my commander disobeys me. [Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4519]

أَخْبَرَنَا يُوسُفُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، أَنَّ زِيَادَ بْنَ سَعْدٍ، أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ ابْنَ شِهَابٍ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّهُ، سَمِعَ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ، يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي وَمَنْ عَصَى أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ عَصَانِي ‏”

Abu Hurairah said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my governor (Amir), he has obeyed me, and whoever disobeys my governor, he has disobeyed me.”‘[Sunan an-Nasa’i 4193].

We see that both these hadeeth has same Arabic text and literally it means “my governor or my commander”, there is no word as “I appoint” here. The expression of “my Amir” implies that the hadeeth is talking about governor, who was in charge, that is why the translator choose to translate it as governor/commander. Shias might argue saying Ameer means Caliph, but the fact is that word Ameer, is more often used to mention a governor or a commander. Here are few examples where the word Ameer was used to mean commander or governor. We read:

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَجَّاجُ بْنُ الشَّاعِرِ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنِي عَلْقَمَةُ بْنُ مَرْثَدٍ، أَنَّ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ بُرَيْدَةَ، حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا بَعَثَ أَمِيرًا أَوْ سَرِيَّةً دَعَاهُ فَأَوْصَاهُ ‏.‏ وَسَاقَ الْحَدِيثَ بِمَعْنَى حَدِيثِ سُفْيَانَ

Sulaiman b. Buraida repotted on the authority of his father that when Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) sent an Amir with a detachment he called him and advised him. The rest of the hadith is the same.(Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4295)

حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُعَاذٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ زِيَادٍ – قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ، وَرَأَى، رَجُلاً يَجُرُّ إِزَارَهُ فَجَعَلَ يَضْرِبُ الأَرْضَ بِرِجْلِهِ وَهُوَ أَمِيرٌ عَلَى الْبَحْرَيْنِ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ جَاءَ الأَمِيرُ جَاءَ الأَمِيرُ ‏.‏ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَنْظُرُ إِلَى مَنْ يَجُرُّ إِزَارَهُ بَطَرًا ‏”
Abu Huraira reported that he saw a person whose lower garment bad been trailin. and he was striking the ground with his foot (conceitedly). He was the Amir of Bahrain and it was being said: Here comes the Amir, here comes the Amir. He (Abu Huraira) reported that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) said: Allah will not look toward him who trails his lower garment out of pride.(Sahih Muslim Book 24, Hadith 5201).

So we see that the word Amir is used for governors and commanders too.

Refutation #1

Refutation of Shiawebsite[Revisitingthesalaf]

The following is a response to the article on Revisitingthesalaf.org, entitled: Proof of Leadership With Divine Authority in the Words of Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).

Please click this link to read the read refutation.

 

Refutation #2:

Refutation of Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar]

Did Ibn `Abbās (ra) Relate the Imāmī View?

An exposition that reveals how the Answering-Ansar team took two quotes of a Sunnī scholar out of context, joined it together, and fabricated a false quote of a Companion.

Please click this link to read the read refutation.

 

Refutation of Shia Tafsir al Mizan by Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i.

Author of Tafsir al Mizan states under the commentary of (4:59)

[Quote] ….However, the ulu ‘l-amr (those vested with authority) – whoever they might be – do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the prophet’s opinion and order. That is the reason why Allah has not mentioned them when He orders the believers to refer their disputes to Allah and the Messenger. He says: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. The people thus ordered are the believers, because the verse begins with the address, “O you who believe!” and the quarrel mentioned here must be an internal dispute among the believers. We cannot suppose that the believers would quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated to obey them. So this quarrel must be among the believers themselves, and it cannot be in matters of orders issued by those vested with authority; rather it has to be about identification of Allah’s command in a particular affair, as may be inferred from the next verses which condemn those who resort to the judgment of taghut (infidels) preferring it to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger. A believer must resort in such matters to the religious laws laid down in the Qur’an and the sunnah; and both the Qur’an and the sunnah are final proofs in all affairs, for him who has the ability to understand the law from them. When the ulu’I-amr say that this is what the Qur’an and the sunnah say on this matter, all argument has to stop. When they talk, theirs is the final word, because the verse makes their obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition; and finally every affair returns to the Book of Allah and the sunnah.

It shows that the people with authority – whoever they might be – have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose to order people to refer their dispute to the Qur’an and the sunnah, to Allah and the Messenger, as may be inferred from the verse 33:36: “And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying”. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law, giving an order or pronouncing a judgment. As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power, in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger. [End Quote]

Answer:

The author of Shia Tafir al Mizan has tried to explain that the dispute or disagreement mentioned in the verse(4:59) is an internal dispute between the believers and believers are commanded to refer Allah and Prophet during disagreement between them and that it doesn’t includes the dispute between the believers and Ulil Amr(those in authority). But this understanding of the author is flawed for several reasons.

1. Firstly, If it was regarding the dispute between believers only, then the initial part of the verse which is about obedience to Allah , Prophet(saw) and Ulil Amr already covers it. For example, Let us suppose Ulil Amr are the Judges and their duty is to Judge people, now when Allah commands  for their “OBEDIENCE”, it means that when there is a disagreement between believers the Judge makes a judgment which needs to be obeyed by the believers. This is how Judges(ulil amr) are obeyed and the dispute is resolved. Thus the initial part of the verse about obedience to Ulil Amr, itself covers the point which the Shia author tries to imply on the later part of verse. This implies that the later part of the verse about disagreement has a different purpose.

2. Secondly, the author of Tafsir al Mizan tried to argue that when there is a disagreement between believers then they need to approach Ulil Amr who would resolve the disagreement based on the rulings derived from Quran and Sunnah. However in this process the one who is actually being referred by believers will be Ulil Amr, not Quran and Sunnah, and the Ulil Amr would be the ones who would refer to Quran and Sunnah and derive the judgment. But as the Shia author stated, the command to refer Quran and Sunnah was to believers, not Ulil Amr. Hence this shows that the Shia author’s interpretation is incorrect.

3. Thirdly, the explanation of Shia author of Tafsir al Mizan, goes against the understanding of Shia Imam.

We read in Shia book Al Kafi in an authentic report that Imam Abu Ja`far(as) recited: {Believers, obey Allah, obey His Messenger, and your leaders, if ye fear that you would differ among yourselves then refer it to Allah and the messenger and your leaders} Then he (as) said: “How can he order their obedience then allow you to differ with them? He only meant the ones who are under orders when he said {Obey Allah and obey the messenger}.]

In the above reliable narration of Al-Kafi, Imam adds some words to the verse of current Quran, as He considers the current and present verse(4:59) to be incomplete, and then Imam points that the current verse allows believers to differ with Ulil Amr due to absence of the words which He added. So apparently the current verse of Quran(4:59) allows believers to dispute with Ulil Amr, as the Imam understood, contrary to incorrect interpretation of Tafsir Mizan.

Moreover, for this same narration in the footnotes of Shia book(Hayat ul Quloob 3/165), the Shia translator Molvi Basharat Hussain states that:{ “The author(Baqir Majlisi) says, Hazrat(Imam) meant that, If ulil amr is not mentioned in the end(of verse), it would be the evidence that the Ummah(community) can disagree with them, and this is against the order of obedience towards them which is in the beginning of the verse”.} (Scan page of Hayat ul Quloob 3/165).

We know that, in the current verse, Ulil Amr is not mentioned in the end of the verse which implies believers can disagree with them. Thus even according to Baqir Majlisi(author of Hayat ul Quloob) Imam meant the same which we explained. This clearly refutes the incorrect interpretation of author of Tafsir al Mizan.

We would like to further analyze some claims made by author of Tafsir Mizan:

(a). Tafsir Mizan says:

{ We cannot suppose that the believers would quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated to obey them.}

Respose: The author of Tafsir Mizan cannot suppose it due to ignorance of historical facts and authentic traditions of Prophet(Saw). Had the author referred history in unbiased way, then he would have believed in it. Aside from authentic reports which we provided in the part 1 of these articles where believers differed with the ones in authority, there are many other such  historical incidents where believers disputed or disagreed with the ones in authority, for example, during the expedition of Yemen, where Ali(ra) was appointed as Commander of the Army, some of the soldiers under his authority disagreed with him, and complained to Prophet(saw) due to which they were rebuked, but what is interesting to note is that, those believers didn’t understood from the verse(4:59) that one cannot disagree with the one in authority.  Similarly, when people disputed with Uthman(ra), He never used verse(4:59) saying you cannot dispute with the Ruler, nor did the ones use it when they defended him. Likewise, even Ali(ra) never used this verse against those who disputed with him, by saying that one cannot dispute with him due to this verse, nor did Ali(ra) consider those people as disbelievers who disputed with him.

A simple example this issue is that of a family, whose Wali al Amr(one in authority) will be the Man, the family members like his wife and children MUST OBEY him, however they shouldn’t obey him in things which he commands against Allah and Prophet(saw). This illustrates how obedience is conditional.

(b). Tafsir Mizan says:

{ As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power, in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger.}

Response: If this is the responsibility of Ulil Amr(those in authority), then even those who were appointed as Judges or Ameer of different cities are to be considered as Ulil Amr because even they had the same responsibility and performed the same job. And if it is to be supposed that Ulil Amr is one person during his time, then it would practically be impossible for him to perform his job, like making the judicial decisions of the whole Muslim Ummah, when the believers are in dispute in different regions. This is the reason we find that even during the time of Prophet(Saw), He appointed judges and Ameers for certain regions. As followed by the Khulafa after him. Even Ali(ra) during his Caliphate did the same.

Thus when this responsibility which author of Tafsir Mizan is implying to Ulil Amr(those in authority) was same for Ameers and Judges of different cities, then even they need to be classified as Ulil Amr. And we know that these Ameers or judges weren’t infallibles as the Shias too agree, thus it is not possible that their obedience is unconditional, rather their obedience will be conditional, which is the correct interpretation of verse(4:59).

(c). Tafsir Mizan says:

{ It shows that the people with authority – whoever they might be – have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah..}

Response: We would like to bring it to attention of readers, that there is a disagreement between Shia scholars regarding the point stated by author of Tafsir al Mizan. Following are the views of some esteemed Shia scholars who stated that that Imams can legislate Shariah.

(i).Ayatullah Sistani answers in “al-Rafid fi ‘Ilm al-Usool – taqrir bahs al-Sistani” by al-Sayyed Muneer page 26:

“Naskh: we talked in it about the possibility that Ahlul-Bayt (as) can abrogate the Qur’anic verse or the Prophetic Hadith or the Hadith of the previous infallible, the types of abrogation are al-Naskh al-Tablighee which means that the information of the abrogation has been given to them (as) by the Prophet SAWS but they announce it in its time, then there is al-Naskh al-Tashri’ee meaning that the abrogation can come from them initially based on the fact that they have the right of Tashri’i just like the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) had it and we discussed the topic also in the research of Naskh.”

(ii). Ayatullah al-Khoei has said about the infallible being able to abrogate/cancel the rulings of the Quran:
إن الحكم الثابت بالقرآن ينسخ بالسنة المتواترة ، أو بالاجماع القطعي الكاشف عن صدور النسخ عن المعصوم عليه السلام
“A Hukm (ruling) established in the Qur’aan can be abrogated by a successively and uninterruptedly transmitted hadeeth, or by a definition consensus that demonstrated the abrogation was based on the opinion that came from the infallibles.”(Al-Khoei, Al-Bayaan fee Tafseer Al-Qur’aan, pg. 192 or 286).

(iii)Ayatullah Meshkini wrote: “When imam Mahdi will come, he will carry out all functions of last prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), except prophecy. That will include control of divine legislation, it is mean that he could change them (divine legislation) in accordance to time and society needs”. ( see “Vajib and haram” p 8, published by “Daneshe hamidun”)

(iv) Ayatullah  Kamal al-Haydari says in “`Ilm al-Imam” pg.508:

فالنبيّ صلّى الله عليه وآله يقوم بوضع بعض التشريعات بإذن منه تعالى في ضوء ما أدّبه سبحانه، وهكذا الأمر بالنسبة إلى أئمّة أهل البيت عليهم السلام، فإنّهم يشرّعون بعض التشريعات التي لم يشرّعها الله تعالى ولا نبيّه صلّى الله عليه وآله، على أساس ما أدّبهم الله تعالى، بحيث لا يشرّعون شيئاً ولا يقولون إلاّ كان مطابقاً لما أراده الله سبحانه
[The Prophet (SAWS) places some religious laws with permission from Allah (swt), according to how Allah disciplined him. This is how it is for the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt as well, they also legislate some Islamic laws that have not been previously legislated by Allah or his messenger (SAWS) according to how Allah disciplined them. This happens in a way, that every law they set and every saying they utter is always in accordance to the will of Allah (swt).]

This shows that there is disagreement between Shia scholars regarding legislation of Shariah by Imams, and they disagree with the interpretation made by Tafsir al Mizan, which further weakens the incorrect interpretation of Tafsir Mizan.

 

Tafsir al Mizan further states under the commentary of (4:59)

[Quote]….Burayd ibn Mu’awiyah has narrated that Abu Ja’far (a.s.) recited: “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you; then if you fear a dispute about anything, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you.” Then he said: “How can it be that He orders their obedience and then allows disputing with them? He (Allah) has said it to the rebellious ones who were told, ‘obey Allah and obey the Messenger’.” (al-Kafi)

The author says: All that this tradition shows is that the Imam (a.s.) was explaining the verse and elaborating on it; as we have described in the Commentary. It does not mean that the Imam (a.s.) was giving a separate version of the verse, as might be misunderstood by the word, ‘recited’. A proof of what we have said may be found in the fact that different wordings have been used in other traditions [giving the same meaning, and even in the same tradition recorded in another book]. For example:

Hariz has narrated from Abu ‘Abdillah (a.s.) that he said: “It was revealed, then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and to the Messenger and to those vested with authority from you.” (at-Tafsir, al-Qummi). [End Quote]

The author of Tafsir al Mizan tries to take people for a ride, by making his personal interpretation which contradicts the reports he himself quoted.

Firstly, the report says Imam ‘RECITED’ the verse like that, Imam didn’t the explain, rather He recited it that way, if it was for explanation, then there wasn’t any need to add extra words to verse of Quran during recitation. As per Shia reports Imam actually recited it that way, because according to him the verse was revealed like that, as it would be clear from the report which the author quoted from ‘Tafsir Qummi’. Here is report with Arabic text.

فرض على الناس طاعتهم فقال: { يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم } يعني أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام حدثني أبي عن حماد عن حريز عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال نزلت: { فإن تنازعتم في شيء فارجعوه إلى الله والرسول وأولي الأمر منكم }.

[He made their obedience obligatory on the people, so he said: {Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders} meaning Ameer al-Mu’mineen peace be upon him. My father told me, from Hamad bin Hurayz, from abu `Abdillah (as) that he said: “It was revealed: {refer it to Allah, His Messenger, and the leaders among you.}”](Tafseer Al-Qummi (p. 135).

This clearly exposes the intellectual fraud of Tafsir al Mizan, because from this report we came to know that, Imam believed that the verse was revealed like how he recited in the previous report of Al-Kafi.

Further, the comment made by Esteemed Shia Allama Baqir Majlisi, further helps in proving how the author of Tafsir Mizan tried to fool the readers.

و ظاهر كثير من الأخبار أن قوله:” وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ” كان مثبتا هيهنا فأسقط

Majlisi states after the narration:[It is apparent from many of the narrations that the term “and the leaders among you” was affirmed here, but was then removed.]( “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/77).

Thus, the author of Tafsir Mizan has completely misinterpreted the verse(4:59) and has tried to mislead the readers.

“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (17:81)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s