SAHÂBA ‘The Blessed’

The two hundred and fifty-first letter in the first volume of the book Maktûbât-i-Imâm-i-Rabbânî, which is a compilation of five hundred and thirty-six of the explanatory and advisory letters written to scholars, governors, commanders and rulers living in various cities, by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî, Mujaddid-i-elf-i-thânî, Ahmad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’, the greatest Islamic scholar, was written to Muhammad Ashraf, and elucidates a variety of matters such as the virtues of the Khulafâ-ir-râshidîn, (i.e. the earliest four Khalîfas, namely, Abû Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, and Alî,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’; the superiorities of the Shaikhayn, [i.e. Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’; the special values possessed by Hadrat Amîr, [i.e. Hadrat Alî,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’; the honours and distinctions conferred on the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’; and the inner nature of the wars among them.

The initial part of the letter contains profound and subtle information concerning Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawât’ and Awliyâ’ ‘quddisa sirruhum’. We therefore translate the latter part:

Learning the fact that Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ name is written above the gate into Paradise, I began to wonder what could be the eminence and special honours allotted for Hadrat Shaikhayn, [i.e. Abû Bakr and ’Umar,] ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ before the gate of Paradise. I endeavoured hard to learn the matter. Eventually I attained the information that this Ummat’s, [i.e. Muslims’,] entering Paradise will be realized through the authority and permission of these two great persons. As it were, Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ will stand by the gate of Paradise, giving permission for entrance, while ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ will usher the fortunate in by holding them by the hand. I sense as if the entire Paradise is suffused with the nûr (lights, haloes) of Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. According to this faqîr[32], Hadrat Shaikhayn have additional honours and superiorities among all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’. No one else has a share from them. Siddîq, (i.e. Abû Bakr,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi was sallam’, own so to speak, the same one house. The difference between them is like that which is between the two storeys of a house. Fârûq, (i.e. ’Umar,) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ also is in the same honourable house as an assistant to Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. The other blessed Sahâbîs are, as it were, neighbors and fellow-citizens of the Sarwar-i-’âlam ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, their closeness to the blessed Prophet being in proportion to their success in observing his Sunnat-i-saniyya, [i.e. the Islamic religion]. When this is the case with them, one should imagine the positions of the Awliyâ among the later-comers! Accordingly, what could ever have fallen to their share in the business of realizing the greatness of the Shaikhayn? So great and so numerous are the merits and virtues they possess that they share the same position with Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’. With the exception of the rank of prophethood, they enjoy having all their superiorities. As a matter of fact, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Were there Prophets to succeed me, ’Umar would be a Prophet.”

Imâm-i-Ghazâlî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ relates: When the Khalîfa ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was martyred, Abdullah ibn ’Umar said to the Ashâb-i-kirâm: “Nine-tenths of knowledge has joined ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ to death!” When some of the audience showed hesitancy because they did not understand his statement, he explained, “By ‘knowledge’ I mean ‘to know Allâhu ta’âlâ’, and not the knowledge concerning wudû’ (ablution) and ghusl (ritual washing)[33].” How could anyone ever comprehend the greatness of Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ notwithstanding this fact about ’Umar, whose total number of goodnesses, as is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf, could add up to only one of the so many goodnesses possessed by the former? The difference between ’Umar and the Siddîq (Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ is greater than the diffence between the Siddîq and Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. This fact sets a benchmark whereby to imagine how far lower others must be than the Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Nor after death were the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ away from our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. And our Prophet informs that he will rise with them and come to the place of assembly (in the Hereafter) with them. Then, superiority means closeness to him, wherein these two great persons are by far ahead of others. Only a lowly faqîr as I am, how could I ever understand anything of their greatness, and what could I ever tell about their superiorities? Could dust or smoke define the sun? Could a drop of water describe great seas?

Some Awliyâ ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ asrâra-hum-ul-’azîz’, who were sent back on the duty of advising and guiding others, (although they had attained the highest spiritual grades possible for mankind,) and some of the Tâbi’în and the Taba’i-tâbi’în, who had attained the grade of ijtihâd in knowledge, developed a certain amount of awareness of the perfections peculiar to the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ and managed a humble degree of penetration in the inner nature of their greatness, -which the former group owed to the nûr (lights, haloes) of their kashf and the latter to their competence to perceive the ulterior meanings hidden in the depths of hadîth-i-sherîfs-, and they stated their unanimous findings concerning their superiorities. Other kashfs and findings contradictory to their unanimous statements they rejected and despised, saying that they were wrong. As a matter of fact, it was well-known among the Ashâb-i-kirâm that these two, (i.e. the Shaikhayn,) were the most superior. For instance, Abdullah ibn ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted in the book Bukhârî-i-sherîf as having stated, “During the lifetime of the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ we did not know a person to be equated with Abû Bakr. Our second favourite after him was ’Umar, and next below him (in superiority) we knew ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. Below them we held no one else superior to others.” According to another narration on the authority of Abû Dâwûd, Abdullah ibni ’Umar is quoted as having said, “In the time of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, we would say that Abû Bakr was the highest (of the Sahâba), and we held ’Umar next below him, and ’Uthmân next below the latter, “radiy-allâhu ’anhum’, in superiority.”

The statement, “The rank of a Walî is higher than that of a Prophet,” is a fruit of surmise and imagination and belongs to people in spiritual ecstacy. In other words, it is made by those Awliyâ who have not been sent back (with the mission of guiding other people), and who therefore are quite unaware of the rank of prophethood. As I, the faqîr, have stressed in a number of my letters, prophethood is above wilâyat (the rank of a Walî). In fact, a Prophet’s prophethood is higher than his own wilâyat. This is the truth. He who contradicts this must be unaware of the high grade of the rank of prophethood. Among the paths of wilâyat, one path, namely the Silsila-t-uz-zahab, is the path of the Siddîq-i-akbar (Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Those who follow this path, therefore, are wakeful. For this reason, it is the most superior path. How could the Awliyâ of other paths grasp their perfections? And how could they ever understand the inner nature of their path? I do not mean that all the followers of this path reap equal fruits. It is a blessing and a great fortune if one in a million attains the unique perfections indicated. As a matter of fact, Hadrat Mahdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a great scholar whose advent towards Doomsday was foretold by our Prophet ‘sall-allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, will occupy the highest grade of wilâyat, which, in its turn, means that he will have been educated via this path, reached perfection in this path, and put the finishing touches on this path. For, all the other orders and paths of wilâyat are inferior to this path, and the grades of wilâyat they reach, therefore, incorporate few features reflecting the perfections peculiar to the rank of prophethood. Wilâyat attained by following this path, by contrast, accomodates a great deal of those perfections, since it is a path under the guidance of the Siddîq-i-akbar (Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’).

Because Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ undertook and carried on the wilâyat belonging to our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, the education of the Awliyâ called ‘qutb’, ‘abdâl’, ‘awtâd’, etc., who have not returned from the grades they attained, -and therefore do not mix with people-, and who profusely enjoy the perfections inherent in wilâyat, is contingent on his help and guidance. The Awliyâ called ‘qutb-ul-aqtâb’, or ‘qutb-i-medâr’, are under his command and guidance. In other words, they do their duties under his help and instructions. Fâtima-t-uz-zahrâ, (his blessed wife and the Prophet’s blessed daughter,) Hasan and Husayn, (his blessed sons), ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, share this rank with Hadrat Amîr.

All the Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ are great. We have to deem them as great and say that they are great, each and every one. Enes bin Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Allâhu ta’âlâ chose me from among the entire humanity. And He chose the best people and made them Ashâb (Companions) to me. And from among them He chose the highest ones and made them my relatives and assistants. If a person respects them because he loves me, Allâhu ta’âlâ will protect him against all sorts of danger. Those who hurt me by insulting them, however, will get their come-uppance from Him.” Abdullah ibn Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ relates: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “May those who slander and curse my Ashâb be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ, in the view of all the angels and human beings!” Another hadîth-i-sherîf reported on the authority of Âisha-i-siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ states: “The worst people among my Umma are those who dare to speak ill of my Ashâb.”

It must be known that the wars among the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ were based on benevolent motives and thoughts and not on worldly interests and advantages. For, the differences among them were differences of ijtihâd and interpretation. They were not differences originating from sensuous desires and ambitions. The scholars of (the right way termed) Ahl as-sunnat agree on this. Only, those who fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ were wrong (in their ijtihâd). Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was right. However, since their mistake was a matter of ijtihâd, they cannot be blamed or criticized. As the book Sharh-i-mawâqif reports from Âmidî, the events (wars) of Jamal (Camel) and Siffîn arose from (differences of) ijtihâd. According to a quotation from Abû Shakûr Muhammad Sulamî in the book Tamhid, the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at agree on that Hadrat Mu’âwiya and his allies ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were wrong. Yet their mistake was a result of ijtihâd. Ibn Hajar Makkî states as follows in his book Sawâiq-i-Muhriqa: The war between Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ was based on ijtihâd. Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat state so. Who are meant by the expression ‘our ashâb’ in the statement, “The so-called wars (among the Ashâb) were not based on ijtihâd according to the majority of our ashâb,” in the book Sharh-i-mawâqif? Scholars of Ahl as-sunnat do not say so. They say to the contrary. All the books written by the greatest Islamic authorities state that mistaken conclusions of ijtihâd were involved in the events. Imâm Ghazâlî, Qâdî Abû Bakr and other Islamic scholars share the same knowledge concerning this fact. Therefore, it is not permissible to tax those who fought against Hadrat Amîr (Alî) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ with crimes such as blasphemy or heresy.

Imâm Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted as having made the following statements: “If a person curses or maligns one of the Ashâb of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, e.g. Abû Bakr or ’Umar or ’Uthmân or Mu’âwiya or Amr ibn al-Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’, on the allegation that they ‘deviated from the right course’ or ‘became disbelievers’, he must be killed. If he imputes other faults or deficiencies to them, he must be beaten severely.”[1] Contrary to the allegations of some fanatical Shiites who call themselves ‘Alevî’, those who fought against Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ are not disbelievers. Nor are they by any means sinful. In fact, Âisha Siddîqa ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, Talha and Zubayr, and many other Sahâbîs were among them ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în’. Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ and thirteen thousand other people were killed in the war called Jamal (Camel). Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did not take part in those events. A Muslim simply could not utter words of accusation, such as ‘heretics’ and ‘wrongdoers’, about them. One must have a foul heart and a dirty soul to say so.

Some scholars of fiqh used the (Arabic) word ‘jawr’, which means ‘cruelty’, about Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ behaviour; yet, what they really meant was that it had been ‘unjust of him to declare himself Khalîfa during the caliphate of Hadrat Amîr.’ ‘Cruelty’ in that sense should not be construed as ‘heresy’ or ‘wrongdoing’. Therefore, their staments (concerning this matter) are in agreement with those of the greater authorities of Ahl as-sunnat. However, true religious scholars should not make statements of this sort, which are always susceptible to misunderstandings. How can one ever utter the word ‘cruel’ about Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’? Ibn Hajar Makkî states in his Sawâiq-ul-muhriqa that he was a Khalîfa just and blameless in observing the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ and protecting the rights of Muslims. It would have been something justifiable if they had uttered terms on that level about Yazîd. But it is extremely nasty and very ignoble to utter them about Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. All the scholars of hadîth state that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ invoked blessings on Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. For instance, he (the Prophet) pronounced the following invocation: “Yâ Rabbî, teach him the book, -i.e. writing and knowledge-, and judgment, and protect him against torment!” On another occasion, he invoked: “Yâ Rabbî! Guide him to the right way, and make him a guide to the right way!” It is doubtless that an invocation offered by the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ must have been accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ’). Some [ignorant and aberrant] people who are supposed to be men of religion assert that he (the Prophet) pronounced a malediction on him (Hadrat Mu’âwiya). Doesn’t their assertion prove that they are quite unaware of religious books? Their assertion that “Hadrat Imâm Sha’bî criticized Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ” is not true, either. If it were true, Imâm-i-a’zam Abû Hanîfa, who was one of Imâm Sha’bî’s disciples, should have quoted his master’s criticisms. Imâm Mâlik ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was one of the Taba-i-tâbi’în, according to a report, and lived during the time of Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. It is an absolute fact that he was the highest of the scholars of the blessed city of Medina. What on earth could have made that great scholar state that those who swore at Mu’âwiya and Amr ibn Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ should be killed? Since he ordered to kill those who swore at him (Hadrat Mu’âwiya), swearing at him must have been, in his knowledge, one of the grave sins, as grave as swearing at Hadrat Abû Bakr or Hadrat ’Umar or Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’.

Then, it is never permissible to swear at Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. We should think well; Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was not alone in those events. Almost half of the Ashâb-i-kirâm were with him. To call those who fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ‘disbelievers’ or ‘heretics’ means to destroy half of the Islamic religion. For, it is them who spread the Islamic religion over the world and who taught it to us. A person will not criticize them unless he is a heretic whose purpose is to demolish Islam. Those wars and commotions started over the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. They were initially based on demands for retaliation against the murderers. Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ went out of the blessed city of Medina because the retaliation was suspended. Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ was of the same opinion. What they wanted was that the retaliation must be carried out as soon as possible. It never occurred to them that they should fight. The war of Jamal began with an onslaught by the men of a Jewish convert named Abdullah bin Saba’, the behind-the-scenes conspirators of the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. Thirteen thousand people and Talha and Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ were killed in those wars. Later, Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who was in Damascus, joined in the matter and sided with them. Thereupon the war of Siffîn was made. According to Imâm Ghazâlî, those wars were not made for the purpose of assuming caliphate. They were consequent upon the demands that the murderers must be retaliated against and that the retaliation must take precedence over other matters at the outset of Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ career as Khalîfa. As Hadrat Allâma ibn Hajar-i-Makkî confirms, this fact is unanimously stated by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat. According to Abû Shekûr Muhammad Sulamî, one of the greatest scholars in the Madhhab of Hanafî, the war that Hadrat Mu’âwiya fought against Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ was based on caliphate. For the Prophet ‘alaihis-salâtu wassalâm’ had said to him, “When you preside over people, behave mildly towards them!” He had been yearning for caliphate since the day he had heard this. However, he was wrong in his ijtihâd. Hadrat Amîr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ ijtihâd, on the other hand, was right. For, his (Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s) time of caliphate was to begin after the caliphate of Hadrat Amîr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. That means to say that the initial cause of the so-called turmoil was the delay in the retaliation. And when the retaliation was put off, the idea of becoming Khalîfa came into being. In any case, it was a matter of ijtihâd. The wrong party deserved one blessing, and the party with the correct ijtihâd earned two blessings. The best policy that devolves on us in this matter is not to concern ourselves with the fights among the Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. We should not discuss them. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Do not concern yourselves with the matters among my Ashâb ‘ridwânullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în!” At some other time, he stated: “Hold your tongue when they are talked about!” He stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ in the matter of my Ashâb! Do not criticize my Ashâb!”

Yes, Yazîd, the ignominious, was an obdurate sinner. He has not been cursed because the (scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat have not approved of cursing a person, even if he is a disbeliever. They, (scholars of Ahl as-sunnat), say that a person can be cursed only if he (or she) is known to have died as a disbeliever. Abû Lahab and the like are among such people. This does not mean, however, that Yazîd must not be cursed. May those who offend Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ be accursed in the view of Allah in both this world and the next!

Recently, a number of people have made it an avocation for themselves to discuss the matters of caliphate. Whatsoever the topic of conversation in their presence, they somehow convert it into one about the wars among the Sahâba. Because their religious culture consists only in what they have read in the name of history written by ignorant people and what they have heard from people of bid’at, whose lies they take for granted, they malign most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’. I have therefore considered it necessary to write the facts I know and send them to my friends. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “At times of chaos, when lies are written (in the name of truth), acts of worship are contaminated with customs, and my Ashâb ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ are censured, those who know the truth should explain it to others! May those who do not tell the truth, although they know it and are able to tell it, be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ, in the view of angels and in the view of entire humanity! Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept any of their acts of worship, whether they are fard or else.”

Any degree of thanks and praise would fall short of paying the debt of gratitude we owe to Allâhu ta’âlâ, for the present time’s pâdishâh (ruler, emperor) [of India] is a Sunnî Muslim in the Madhhab of Hanafî. If this were not the case, things would be very difficult for Muslims. Every Muslim has to pay thanks for this great blessing.

Every Muslim has to learn the Sunnî credo, correct their belief accordingly, and watch their steps lest they should slip and deviate from the right path by believing people of obscure origin and false books. To attempt to learn one’s religion and belief from books and magazines written cheatfully with fondling and coaxing words by enemies of religion, instead of reading books written by scholars of Ahl as-sunnat ‘rahima humullâhu ta’âlâ’, means to throw oneself into Hell. Reading books containing the words of scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, and adapting ourselves to them is the only way to salvation. This is the end of the translation of the hundred and twenty-first letter.

FIFTEENTH LETTER of THE
SECOND VOLUME of MAKTÛBÂT

Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ states as follows:

The reason for disturbing you the blessed and venerable scholars and judges and authorities and officials of the city of Sâmâna with this letter of mine is the khatîb[35] of your city, who, I have heard, did not mention the names of the Khulafâ-i-Râshidîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’, i.e. the four Khalîfas of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’, during the performance of the khutba after the ’Iyd prayer of Qurbân. Even worse to tell, when a group of the jamâ’at reminded him of his omission, after the prayer, he obstinately retorted, “What does it matter if I don’t?” instead of expressing his sorrow for the mistake or oversight. And the worst of it is that the notables among the audience contented themselves with the part of indifferent bystanders instead of teaching that nasty khatîb his manners. A line from a poem reads as follows:

Shame, and shame, not only once, but hundreds of times!

Yes, it is not one of the indispensable components of khutba to mention the names of the Khulafâ-i-Râshidîn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’; yet it is a sign, a characteristic, a trademark of Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at. One must only be evil-hearted to purposely and obstinately avoid mentioning their names. If his omission was not merely bigotry or obstinacy, then how will he explain himself in the face of the following hadîth-i-sherîf, in which our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states: “If a person yearns after joining a certain community, he is one of them.” And what motives will absolve him from the danger purported in the following âyat-i-kerîma: “Beware from places and situations that will cause imputation and arouse suspicion!” If he denies the superior merits of the blessed Shaikhayn, i.e. of Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, he has left the path of Ahl as-sunnat and become a member of the Shiite sect. If he does not believe the fact that it is necessary to love ’Uthmân and Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, in this case also he has deviated from the right path. I suppose, that aberrant khatîb is from Kashmir. He must have caught that foul contagion from the heretics living in Kashmir.

Let that man know this: That the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ are the highest members of this Ummat (Muslims) is a fact which was believed, and acknowledged at every occasion, by all the Sahâba-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în-i-i’zâm. A great majority of the highest Islamic authorities have communicated this fact to us. Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ is one of those authorities. Abu-l-Hasan al-ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the two leaders of our credal Madhhab, stated: “That Abû Bakr and ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ are, respectively, the highest members of this Umma, is a definite fact.” Imâm Alî stated in the presence of a crowded group of his admirers, during his caliphate: “Be it known that Abû Bakr is the highest of this Ummat, and next comes ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’.” This (statement of Hadrat Alî’s) is quoted by Imâm Zahabî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who notes, “This statement has been quoted by more than eighty narrators.” Giving the names of most of them, he adds, “May Allâhu ta’âlâ punish (the group of heretics called) Râfidîs because they do not know this.” Imâm Muhammad Bukhârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates in his book Bukhârî-i-sherîf, which is the second most valuable Islamic book after the Qur’ân al-kerîm, the Book of Allâhu ta’âlâ: Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stated, “The second best member of this Ummat after the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’ is Abû Bakr, who is the second highest as well, and next after him is ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’. Next after them is someone else.” When his son Muhammad bin Hanafiyya commented, “And you are that person,” he stated, “I am one of Muslims.”

Narrations like this on the authority of Imâm Alî and the greater ones of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ and of the Tâbi’în-i-izâm have reached us and spread far and near. It is either vulgar ignorance or sheer stubbornness to deny the fact despite all those narrations. That unconscionable khatîb must be told that “we have been commanded to love all the Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to offend any one of them. Hadrat ’Uthmân and Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu anhumâ’ are Sahâbîs, too. And they are two of the greatest ones. They are our Prophet’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ sons-in-law. Then, it is necessary to love them, and they must be loved very much. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the Qur’ân al-kerîm: ‘O My beloved Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! Say unto them: I demand only one price for (my service of) having invited you to Islam and for having guided you to eternal happiness: Love my relatives and those who are close to me.’ Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: ‘Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ, fear Allâhu ta’âlâ and do not offend my Ashâb ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’! After me, do not bear malice towards them, and do not show enmity against them! He who loves them, does so because he loves me. And he who is their enemy, is so because he is inimical towards me. He who hurts them hurts me (by doing so). He who hurts me hurts Allâhu ta’âlâ (by doing so). And Allâhu ta’âlâ torments a person who hurts Him.”

Never before since the birth of Islam has India harboured such malodorous rose-buds. All the citizens of Sâmâna are likely to be held responsible for this abominable attitude. In fact, entire India may lose its credibility. The present pâdishâh -may Allâhu ta’âlâ help him against the enemies of religion- is a Sunnî Muslim in the Hanafî Madhhab. It is so daring to invent such a heresy in the time of such a Sultân (emperor)! Perhaps, it means to stand against the state, the ruler. What is really appalling, however, is that the notables and the eminent Muslims of the city have been insensitive and remiss towards the event. Jews and Christians are refuted as follows, as is purported in the sixty-third âyat-i-kerîma of Mâida sûra: “Why do not the Rabbis and the doctors of law forbid them from their (habit of) uttering sinful words and eating things forbidden? Evil indeed are their works.” And the seventy-ninth âyat-i-kerîma purports as follows: “Nor did they (usually) forbid one another the iniquities which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.”

Reticence will embolden the enemies of religion who mean to defile Islam and try to mislead young Muslims by misrepresenting the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ as awkward and ridiculous acts and disguising the harâms and irreligious acts under false names such as ‘fashion’ and ‘modernism’. It will cause them to give a loose to their foul intentions and wound Islam. Is it not this lassitude on the part of Muslims that afforded Islam’s enemies an opportunity to openly carry on their plans to make Muslims’ children irreligious and mislead them into the heresies they have concocted? Like wolves, they are dragging the sheep by ones or twos away from the flock and destroying them. I would hate to bother you so much. Yet I went out of my mind when I heard the infuriating news. It set my Fârûqî veins into motion and these writings came out of my pen. I hope you will forgive me. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you and those who adhere to the right path and those who follow Muhammad Mustafâ ‘alaihi wa ’alâ âlihissalawâtu wa-t-taslîmâtu wa-t-tahiyyâtu wa-l-barakât’ with salvation! Âmin.

Ahmad Fârûqî

Muhammad is the Darling of the Creator of worlds.
Physically pure, Ahmad in name, and rahmat for worlds.

Owner of Khuluq-i-’azîm, and lauded in Leuw lâka... .
Source of knowledge, adab, fayz, nûr and muhabbat.

He is the true mediator between Haqq and the slave,
His words are medicine for souls, his name for rusty hearts.

He is the true doctor for hearts suffering from melancholy,
He is, nay, even his Ummat are higher than angels.

To His most distinguished slave Haqq has given assistants,
His most beloved slaves He made his Ashâb.

Rasûlullah said: their path is my path, indeed;
‘Best of times’ indicates their time.

They loved Muhammad more than they did their lives,
For his sake they sacrificed their property, positions’n lives.

For spreading Islam they gave their lives;
Yâ Rabb, how lovely a state; Yâ Rabb, how great an honour.

One single sohbat with him, and their nafs was purified,
Their hearts were with ma’rifat, fayz, nûr’n tajallî occupied.

States peculiar to Awliyâ took them a moment to attain;
And they ever followed him, what a great honour to attain.

All of them are just, blameless, and never cruel to anyone;
Never for their nafs would they yearn after caliphate.

Nor would they fight for that purpose or hurt one another;
They occupy the highest position, and they all are mujtahids.

Allâhu ta’âlâ always exists. He never ceases to exist. He, alone, creates everything from nothing. He keeps all His creatures always in existence. He, alone, cures the unhealthy; gives food to human beings and animals; feeds the hungry; kills; knows the unknown; sees and hears all; and has power over all. He does not eat or drink, is not begotten and does not beget, and does not have a likeness. No change takes place in His Person or Attributes. These Attributes are peculiar to Him. They are termed attributes of Ulûhiyyat. Human beings, medicines, machines, weapons cannot create anything. They serve as a means for His creating. He does not need the means or anything else. To believe that one of the attributes of ulûhiyyat exists in one of the creatures, e.g. in men, in beasts, in the sun or stars, is termed shirk. A person who holds that belief is called mushrik. With that belief, he has attributed a sherîk=partner to Allâhu ta’âlâ. To pray or entreat or venerate, with that belief, something or someone or his idol or picture, means to worship an idol = idolatry, and the object worshipped as such is an idol. Places or mausoleums containing such objects are called pagan temples. It is not idolatry, however, to respect a person or his picture or statue or grave because he is believed to have been a beloved slave of Allâhu ta’âlâ or a hero who served humanity and his country. One does not become a mushrik by doing so. After Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ was raised to heaven, people who believed that he was a prophet held his pictures and statues in reverence in order to attain his intercession for them on the Rising Day. This reverence of theirs did not mean to worship him or to idolize him. After the christianization of the Roman polytheists, however, the Platonic philosophy, Trinity, spread and caught on, whereby some people’s belief was blighted by the heresy that he (Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’) possessed attributes of ulûhiyyat (deity, godhood). This, in its turn, gave rise to an ever-increasing number of people professing their belief in his procreation from God or his membership of a tripartite godhead. The heresy thus born proliferated into a new breed of polytheism that was finally adopted as an official religion in the Nicean Council. Votaries of this polytheism were called Christians. They are worshipping his pictures and icons and two perpendicular lines called the cross. All their churches are temples of idolatry. If a Muslim goes to a church or to a fountain held sacred by Christians and asks the priests therein to pronounce a blessing over him or to pray for him so that he will recover from a certain illness, he becomes a mushrik. A mushrik (polytheist) is worse than the worst of disbelievers. An (edible) animal that he kills (by jugulation) must not be eaten. A Muslim must not marry his daughter. All Christians and Jews are kâfirs (disbelievers) on account of their denial of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Of these disbelievers, the ones who did not lapse into shirk (polytheism) are called Ahl-i-kitâb (People of the Book). Animals they kill (by jugulation) can be eaten (by Muslims). Muslims can marry their daughters by way of (the Islamic marriage contract called) nikâh. The Qur’ân al-kerîm states that Jews and polytheists are hostile to Muslims. They are trying to demolish Islam from within by means of lies, tricks and treacherous plans. This treachery was started by Jews during the time of ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, the third Khalîfa. Then Christians began to attack. They invented the heretical groups called Shiites and Wahhâbîs as against the true Muslims called Ahl as-sunnat or Sunnîs (or Sunnites), who are the true followers of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Shî’ism means enmity towards the Ashâb-i-kirâm. They assert that the “Sahâba perpetrated inimical acts towards Alî.” The Qur’ân al-kerîm, on the other hand, informs us that the Sahâba loved one another very much and that they will all attain Paradise. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ also stated, “Love all the Ashâb-i-kirâm and keep on their path!” He stated at another time, “My Ashâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will attain guidance (to the right path).” A Muslim who loves Hadrat Alî is called Alawî (or Alevî). The Sunnî Muslims are truly Alawî since they love all the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Our Prophet called the enemies of the Ashâb-i-kirâm Râfidîs. He informed that all the Râfidîs will go to Hell. Shiites call themselves Alawîs in order to deceive Muslims. If they were Alawîs, they would be following the path guided by Hadrat Alî. He loved all the Ashâb-i-kirâm. He gave allegiance to Hadrat Abû Bakr as soon as he heard that he had been elected Khalîfa. He made Hadrat ’Umar his son-in-law by giving his daughter in marriage to him. Please see the eightieth letter in the first volume of Maktûbât, by Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhî ’aleyh’. The book has Arabic and Persian versions. The first volume was also translated into Turkish under the title Müjdeci Mektûblar (Letters Giving Good News). An English translation of the eightieth letter exists in the final part of this book.

____________________

Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî states as follows in the two hundred and seventy-fifth (275) letter of his book Maktûbât:

You have attained that blessing by teaching Islamic knowledge and promulgating the rules of Fiqh. Ignorance was established and bid’ats were rife in those places. Allâhu ta’âlâ has blessed you with affection towards His beloved ones. He has made you a means of spreading Islam. Then, do your utmost to teach religious knowledge and to spread the tenets of Fiqh. These two are ahead of all happinesses, means of promotion to higher grades, and causes of salvation. Endeavour hard! Come forward as a man of religion! Perform amr-i-ma’rûf and nahy-i-munker and guide the people living there to the right path! The nineteenth âyat of Muzzammil sûra purports: “Verily this is an admonition: Therefore, whoso will, let him take a (straight) path to his Rabb, (i.e. to Allâhu ta’âlâ)!”

NOTE

There are twenty-two groups who censure the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The worst of these groups are the heretics who say that “Allah exists in Alî. To worship Alî means to worship Him.” The second worst group, on the other hand, castigate the first group, saying, “How could Alî ever be Allah? He is human. Yet he is the highest member of mankind. Allah sent the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him. But Jebrâîl (the archangel) favoured Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ and brought the Qur’ân al-kerîm to him, depriving Alî of his right.” There is yet a third group, who reprove them, saying, “What a nonsense to say! Our Prophet is Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. Only, he had said that Alî should be Khalîfa after him. Yet the Sahâba did not obey him and gave the right of caliphate to the other three, leaving Alî the fourth place.” Thus they vilify the other three Khalîfas for having encroached upon Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ right and bear grudge against all the Ashâb-i-kirâm for having deprived him of his right, while expressing their indignation over his failure to protect his own right. All these three groups are disbelievers. The other groups are either disbelievers or holders of bid’at. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless them all with hidâyat (guidance)! May He grant them the insight to see the right way!

Millions of people living in Iranian villages and in Iraq today are floundering about in the miasma of this heresy. We have come across a novel of some hundred pages, entitled Husniyya, which is said to have been being read as the most valuable book by these miserable miscreants. The book was printed in Istanbul and builds its theme over the concocted story of a conversation between a young woman, a concubine in the palace of Hârûn-ur-rashîd, and some men. It is understood that it was written in Iran, by an Iranian Jew named Murtadâ, and was translated from Fârisî into Turkish. Misinterpreting the âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs, distorting the historical facts and events, and fabricating pathetic stories so as to mislead the ignorant, it assails the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’ and the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat. For instance:

1– “Imâm-i Shâfi’î was in Baghdâd. Abû Yûsuf was a qâdî as well. There was hostility between them,” he alleges. Being quite unaware of ijtihâd, he looks on differences of ijtihâd as hostility.

2– “Abû Yûsuf and Shâfi’î and the scholars of Baghdâd proved short of answering Husniyya,” he asserts. He has the face to write so because he does not know the greatness of Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. As a matter of fact, Farîdaddîn-i-Attâr ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanations in Tadhkira-t-ul-awliyâ:

Imâm-i-Muhammad Shâfi’î ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was only thirteen years old when he had the self-confidence to make the following challenge in Harem-i-sherîf: “Ask me any questions you like!” He was fifteen years old when he could give fatwâ[36]. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, who was the greatest scholar of his time and had three hundred thousand hadîths committed to his memory, would pay him visits for the purpose of learning from him. It appeared paradoxical to a number of people around Imâm-i-Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) for him, such a great scholar as he was, to sit before a person as young as he was. Yet when he was asked why, he would explain, “He knows the meanings of the things we have memorized. If I had not seen him, I would have failed to get any further beyond the gate of knowledge. He is a sun illuminating the entire world; he is nourishment for souls.” At another occasion he said, “The gate of fiqh had been closed. Allâhu ta’âlâ opened this gate again for His slaves by means of Shâfi’î.” At some other time he observed, “I know no one who has served Islam more than Shâfi’î has.” And again, according to Imâm-i-Ahmad (bin Hanbal), the scholar denoted to in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ creates a scholar every hundred years, and through him teaches my religion to others,” was Imâm-i-Shâfi’î. [This hadîth-i-sherîf states that these scholars will appear in the Dâr-ul-Islâm.] Sufyân-i-Sawrî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “Shâfi’î’s wisdom was more than the sum of the wisdoms of half of the people of his time.” Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, “I do not know the Shâfi’î Madhhab well. Yet I like Imâm Shâfi’î very much. For I see him ahead of others in every realm I look into.” One day Imâm Shâfi’î was delivering a lecture, when he stood up and sat down again, repeating the same behaviour a couple of times. When, afterwards, he was asked why he had done so, he explained, “A child, who was a Sayyid, was playing immediately outside the door. Whenever he passed before me, I stood up out of respect for him. It would have been something inexcusable to see a grandchild of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and not to stand up.” If the author of the book Husniyya had known of this fact, he would perhaps have felt shame to say that “Imâm Shâfi’î was hostile towards the Ahl-i-bayt.” Rebî’ bin Haysam ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ related, “I saw Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’ dead in my dream. (The next morning, when I told my dream to people who were good at interpreting dreams,) they said that the greatest scholar of our time was going to die. For it was stated in an âyat-i-kerîma that knowledge was a property of Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. Imâm Shâfi’î passed away a few days later.”

3– “When Husniyya explained that her Madhhab was love of Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and put forward her arguments, the scholars were unable to answer her,” he writes. The Ahl-i-bayt-i-Rasûl and all the Ashâb-i-kirâm were of the same creed. They were in the path shown by the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs.

As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states, “My Ashâb are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will be following the right path.” He does not say, “some of my Ashâb,” or “only my Ahl-i-bayt.” He says, “my Ashâb,” which means to say that they held the same creed. These people, on the other hand, are trying to deceive Muslims by calling their wrong stories and heretical beliefs ‘The madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’. If there had been a scholar in the so-called discussion, the concubine would not even have been able to open her mouth. The author (of the book Husniyya) attempts to blemish the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat by asserting that they were not able to answer her.

4– He says, (through the imaginary concubine), that “Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ became a Believer as he was a child,” tries to prove by means of lies and solecisms that “a child’s belief is acceptable,” and simulates how the so-called concubine “refuted the scholars by concluding that caliphate was Alî’s right.”

Misrepresenting the Ahl as-sunnat as having denied the fact that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was a child when he became a Believer, he alleges that the concubine put the Ahl as-sunnat scholars to shame. The truth, however, is that all the Sunnî books provide a detailed account of Imâm Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ becoming a Believer as a child and praise the Lion of Allah (Hadrat Alî) with highly laudatory remarks.

5– In another page he attacks the Ahl as-sunnat as follows: “After the Messenger of Allah, Alî is higher than the Anbiyâ-i-mursalîn (prophets). The Imâm (Alî) is the wasi-i-Rasûl (the Prophet’s trustee), who has committed to his memory all the heavenly books, the Torah, the Zabûr, the Bible, and the Qur’ân. Abû Bakr, on the other hand, was forty years old when he gave up worshipping the idols called Lât and Uzzâ and became a Muslim; he opposed the Rasûl-i-Hudâ several times; his skin and blood had been fed with wine; how come you accept the belief of that person while rejecting the belief of the innocent members of the Prophet’s family and harbouring enmity and grudge in your hearts against that noble family?”

At many places of the Qur’ân al-kerîm, e.g. in the eighty-sixth âyat of An’âm sûra, which reads as follows: “And Ismâ’îl and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: And to all We gave favour above the nations,” (6-80) Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that all prophets are higher than all non-prophets. To say that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is higher than prophets means to contradict the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which in turn is an act of kufr (disbelief). The other heavenly books, (e.g. the Torah and the Bible,) were not in poetic form, and nor were they memorized by anyone. As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was unable to answer three questions he was asked about the Torah and waited for three days for Jebrâ’îl (Gabriel) ‘alaihis-salâm’ to arrive with the answers. He spent the three days in deep anguish, and so did all the Muslims around him. Finally, the Kahf sûra was revealed and the answers proved to be in agreement with the facts in the Torah. Hadrat Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ and the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were friends since their boyhood. They were warm-hearted towards one another, and together most of the time. It is written in books that neither of them ever tasted wine or worshipped idols. For instance, the book Ma’al-il-faraj reports on the authority of Qâdî Abu-l-Hasan that Abû Hurayra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ related: We were sitting in the presence of Rasûl-i-akram ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, when Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “O Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’! I swear by your right that I never worshipped idols throughout my life.” Hadrat ’Umar warned, “Why do you swear by the right of Rasûlullah? We led a life of nescience for so many long years.” Upon this Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ related, “My father Abû Quhâfa took me to the place where the idols stood. ‘These are your creators. Prostrate yourself before them,” he said. When he was gone, I said to an idol, ‘I am hungry. Give me something to eat.’ It did not answer. I asked for water, and then for clothes. No voice came out. I challenged, ‘I shall throw stones at you. Stop me if you can!’ Silence, again. I threw stones at him. It fell flat on its face. My father was surprised when he was back and saw all that. He took me back home. My mother suggested that they should not say anything to me.” When Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ finished his words, the Messenger of Allah ‘alaihis-salâm’ stated, “Jebrâ’îl ‘alaihi-salâm’ has just come to me and said that Abû Bakr told the truth.”

Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ sacrificed all his property, his life, his children, and everything he had for his sake. The hadîth-i-sherîf that states, “Abû Bakr’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ îmân is more than the sum of the îmâns of my entire Ummat,” would be sufficient in itself to prove that he was higher than all the other Sahâbîs. In addition, there is many another hadîth-i-sherîf stating that he was the highest of all. A few of them are quoted along with their documentary sources in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ never opposed Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wasallam’. In fact, even his ijtihâds were in agreement with those of the Messenger of Allah. Furthermore, (he was so deeply attached to Rasûlullah that) once he sincerely expressed his willingness to barter all his acts of worship for one single mistake ever made by the Messenger of Allah. The books of Ahl as-sunnat brim over with love and veneration for the Ahl-i-bayt. His assailing the Ahl as-sunnat scholars with the accusation that they “harbour enmity and grudge (against the Ahl-i-bayt)” reeks of the treacherous and ignoble attempts to defame the Ahl as-sunnat which his book bristles with. So many are the reports and passages laudatory of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ in the books of Tafsîr and Hadîth written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat that no Muslim can be imagined not to have heard at least one or two of them. For instance, Abdullah ibni Abbas ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ reports: I heard the Messenger of Allah state, “Love of Alî burns a Muslim’s sins like fire’s burning (pieces of) wood.” Love of him entails correct learning of his words and painstaking efforts to attain the personality typified in his example.

6– He states in a page, “According to the Ahl as-sunnat, evils, wrongdoings, disbelief and sins are in agreement with Allah’s qadâ and qadar (foreordination, fate), although He does not approve of them. This belief is like saying that a certain judge disapproves of his own decree. Those who say so are aware of their own disbelief and they try to cover their own guilt by putting the blame for disbelief on qadâ and qadar, which in turn is the devil’s madhhab.”

These statements betray his denial of qadâ and qadar. Also, they contradict Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq by doing so. Distorting the âyat-i-kerîmas purporting that Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Creator of all, he interprets them arbitrarily. However, the true meanings of those âyat-i-kerîmas are explained with such excellence as will command the admiration of owners of wisdom in the tafsîr of Shaikhzâda [Muhammad bin Shaikh Mustafâ], which is an annotation to (Qâdi) Baydâwî’s (book of tafsîr entitled Anwâr-ut-tanzîl). He quotes (the imaginary concubine named) Husniyya as having said, “I stayed in Imâm Abû Ja’far’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ home between the ages five and twenty. From him did I acquire all this knowledge.” He begrimes the honourable name of that great religious leader with his lies and disbelief for the purpose of smuggling them into people’s credence. As a matter of fact, Imâm-i-Ja’far Sâdiq’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ statements on qadâ and qadar are quoted and explained in minute detail in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye[37]. Furthermore, it is illogical of him to say that it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his own decree, in the matter of reconciling decree with approval. Naturally, it would be paradoxical for a judge to disapprove of his fair and correct decree. Likewise, it would be paradoxical for Allâhu ta’âlâ to disapprove of (people’s) obeying Him and doing good and charitable deeds. In fact, He declares that He will approve of such acts. Yet, how could a judge approve of a decree that he made under duress or by mistake and which he, later, finds out to have been wrong? He would not approve of it even if it was his own decree. Sirâj-ud-dîn Alî bin ’Uthmân Ûshî, owner of the fatwâs called the fatwâs of Sirâjiyya, states as follows in the third distich of the extremely valuable qasîda entitled Amâlî: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has the Attribute ‘Hayât’, [that is, He is alive]. He foreordains everything in the eternal past.” Several scholars wrote annotations to this qasîda. Sayyid Ahmad Âsim Efendi, who translated the book into Turkish, notes in his annotation, “Qadar means Allâhu ta’âlâ’s knowledge, in the eternal past, of all the future events. Qadâ means His showing this knowledge in Lawh-il-Mahfûz.”[38] [Tayyibî], the annotator of Kashshâf, noted that “According to some (scholars), ‘qadar’ means a ‘general commandment’, and ‘qadâ’ means ‘the happening, one by one, of the events (stated in the general commandment)’. For instance, [Every living being will die] is qadar. And death of every living being is qadâ.” Shams-ad-dîn Mahmûd bin Abdurrahmân Isfahânî, who wrote an annotation to the book Tawâlî’, makes the following definition: “Qadar means the existence of all things, en masse, in Lawh-il-Mahfûz. And qadâ means the creation of their causes and them one by one when their (foreordained) times come.” Qadar means a cellar-full of wheat, and qadâ is to dispense it piecemeal in certain quantities. The words ‘qadar’ and ‘qadâ’ can be used for each other. Qadar: (Ahmad becomes a Muslim of his own volition and using his own will power. And Gregory prefers disbelief, which, also, is his own wish and predilection. There is many an âyat showing this fact.) There is detailed information about qadâ and qadar in the (Turkish) book Se’âdet-i-ebediyye. A person who reads the information with due attention will easily detect the sly, tricky and hoodwinking sophistry which the Jewish author engineers throughout the book (Husniyya). It would take no time for connoisseurs of Tafsîr[39] to diagnose the unschooled and illogical inaptitude in the interpretation of the âyats. Yet people who are unaware of Tafsîr and the twenty main branches of Islamic sciences might be inveigled into taking the book for granted under the influence of melodramatic expressions, such as “She routed them, put them to shame, refuted them, outwitted them, proved them false,” which abound in the book. Therefore, such mendacious and heretical books, magazines and newspapers should not be read at all. Not to read them means to protect yourself from becoming a disbeliever.

7– At one place he says, “At one time Shaikh Behlûl [Behlûl Dânâ] said (to Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa): ‘O Abû Hanîfa! You say that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). An ass is wiser and more virtuous than you are. For it would not walk across an impassable stream whatsoever you do to force it to!’ Ibrâhîm Khâlid was unable to answer her. Hârûn Rashîd and Yahyâ Bermekî laughed.”

And, quoting the hadîth-i-sherîf stating that the group of Qadariyya are the fire-worshippers of this Ummat, he adds, “The group of Qadariyya are people who commit sins and then say that their sins were preordained in the eternal past by Allah. The pre-Islamic Qouraishî polytheists were in the Jabriyya madhhab. Islam rescinded that madhhab. But after the martyrdom of the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn Hadrat Alî, during the reigns of Mu’âwiya and Yazîd, the ’alaihi-il-la’na[40], that madhhab reappeared and survived as a cultural heritage for Muslims.” He tries to prove himself to be right by offering preposterous arguments which give the impression of puerile confabulations.

The scholars of Ahl as-sunnat have never said that man does not have ihtiyâr (choice). According to them, the group of Jabriyya are disbelievers. One should have never read books written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat to believe the shameless slanders in the so-called book. Qadariyya is another apellation for the sect of Mu’tazila. It can be concluded from the so-called book that Shiites are in that sect, too. The sect of Mu’tazila can also be called Qadariyya because they deny qadâ and qadar and say that man is definitely able to do whatever he likes and creates his own actions. In other words, those who deny qadar are the group of Qadariyya, and (the true Muslims) who believe in qadar and qadâ are in the Madhhab of Ahl as-sunnat.

Muhammad bin Abdulkerîm Shihristânî states as follows in his book Milal wa Nihâl: Wâsil bin Atâ, leader of the group Mu’tazila, and his followers assert that “Man is the creator of his own optional actions. Allâhu ta’âlâ has to make the things that are useful for His slaves. He has to reward the good and torment the evil. Allah is one. He cannot have attributes additionally. The Qur’ân is composed of letters, words and sounds, which, in their turn, are creatures and were created afterwards. Man creates his own actions, good or evil. It is not something right to say that Allâhu ta’âlâ creates evil, bad things, sins and disbelief. To say so means to malign him. For he who creates cruelty is cruel himself. And Allâhu ta’âlâ is not cruel.” These words of theirs are wrong. The owner of an action is its agent, not its creator. As man himself is a creature, likewise, his disbelief, belief, worship and disobedience are creatures as well. The ninety-sixth âyat-i-kerîma of Sâffât sûra purports: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has created you and your handiwork.” Imâm Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, a scholar of Ahl as-sunnat, explains the âyat as follows: “The actions you do and the things you make are man’s handiwork. Yet Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, gives you energy to act and creates the causes of your work.” Because the group Qadariyya have held the belief that everyone is the creator of his own handiwork, they have become the fire-worshippers of this Ummat. The Sunnî Muslims say that there is one creator. Fire-worshippers say that there are two creators.

The Arabic book Ikd-ul-jawharî, by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, contains detailed explanations about irâda-i-juz’iyya (limited will, man’s will). Abdulhamîd Harpûtî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ wrote an annotation to the book and entitled his annotation Sim tul’abqarî. The annotation was published in Istanbul in 1305 [1888 A.D.]. Also, Mawlânâ’s[41] booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya was published by offset litho as an appendix to the book Rashahât in Istanbul in 1291 [1874 A.D.], during the period when Safwat Pâsha was Minister of Education. The ninth letter in the book Bughyat-ul-wâjid[42] is a lithographic copy of that booklet. It is stated as follows in the booklet:

May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who created the earth and heaven, human beings and animals, and all their works and actions from nothing. When Allâhu ta’âlâ wills to create something, he says, “Be!” and presently that thing comes into being.

May blessings, salvations and goodnesses be upon Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, our master and superior and best of the people living in hair tents and in buildings made of sun-dried bricks, (i.e. all people,) and upon his Âl (family, household), upon his relatives, and upon his Ashâb!

O you Muslim! May Allâhu ta’âlâ increase your mental capacity! May He bless you with the lot of following the right path! You must know that all groups of Muslims, and also most philosophers and non-Muslims have acknowledged the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, is the one and only power that moves and effects every being, everything, aside from the movements of animals. It is doubtless that He is the creator also of the movements of animals and human beings. In other words, Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, creates all their movements, both the conscious ones, [i.e. those which they are aware of,] such as illness, wealth, sleep and awakenness, and the unconscious ones, [i.e. those they are unaware of,] such as growing and digesting the food consumed, which are not dependent upon their will and option. As for the optional movements of animals and human beings, i.e. their actions which they do by using their will and choice; there are different views concerning these movements. According to the group Jabriyya, for instance, there is only one source of power effective in the optional movements: Allâhu ta’âlâ. They say that man’s power has no function at all. Also, Abul-Hasan Alî Ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ, who is one of our imâms in credal matters, says that they are dependent only upon Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power and that man’s power has no function in them. The group Mu’tazila, on the other hand, maintain that the so-called movements come into existence only out of man’s power and option, while in the view of philosophers they happen from man’s power and yet man has to do them. Abdulmalîk Juwaynî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, who has been known as the Imâm of Haramayn, is wrongly said to have held the same view. As a matter of fact, this jaundiced information is belied by the sagacious scholar Muhammad bin Yûsuf Sinnûsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in his book Umm-ul-barâhîn, and by Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ [722-792, Semmerkand], in Sharh-i-makâsid. The great scholar Ibrâhîm bin Muhammad Isfarâinî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of our masters in credal matters, states that those movements are dependent both upon the power of Allâhu ta’âlâ and upon the slave’s power. According to Qâdî Abû Bakr Bâqillânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, however, the only power effective in the creation of such movements is Allâhu ta’âlâ, and that man’s power is effective only in the nature of the movements, i.e. in their being good or evil. That the Imâm of our Madhhab in credal matters, Muhammad bin Mahmûd Abû Mansûr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, held the same view, is acknowledged by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn-ul-humâm ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâyara; by Kemâladdîn Muhammad ibn Abû Sherîf-i-qudsî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Al-musâmara fî sharh-il-musâyara; by Hasan Chalabi (Çelebi) bin Muhammad Shâh ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, -who was a descendant of Molla Ghurânî-, in his annotation entitled Sharh-i-mawâqif; and by the research scholar Gelenbevî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, in Aqâid-ud-dawwâniyya.

Imâm Birgivî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, explains the true meanings which the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs in a splendid, concise and clear style in his Turkish book Birgivî Vasiyyetnâmesi. Qâdî-zâda (Ahmad Amîn bin Abdullah) ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ makes the following explanation in the twenty-fourth page of his commentary to the book:

Allâhu ta’âlâ is Murîd. In other words, He has the Attribute Irâda (Will). He creates whatever He wishes. He creates whatever He wills to exist. And whatever He does not will to exist, does not exist. It is not necessary for him to make anything. He cannot be forced to do something. For Allâhu ta’âlâ is powerful over all. No one can have power over Him. He never is incapable. Everything comes into existence out of His Will. Goodness such as îmân and obedience (to His commandments), as well as evils such as disbelief and disobedience, all come into existence out of His Will. According to the group Mu’tazila, “Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will, and so He does not create, evils and sins. These things are created by human beings and by the devil. For it would be an evil deed to create evils. And Allâhu ta’âlâ will never do an evil deed.” The (scholars of) Ahl as-sunnat answer them as follows: “It is not an evil deed to create evils. It is an evil deed for men to do evils.” The group Mu’tazila put forward the argument that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed and foreordained evils and disbelief, men would have to acquiesce in disbelief and evils. For it is necessary to acquiesce in qadâ.” The Ahl as-sunnat scholars answer them: “Disbelief itself is not Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ or qadar. It is His maqdî. That is, it is something made qadâ. It is necessary to acquiesce in His qadâ. Yet it is not necessary to acquiesce in the maqdî. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that He is the creator and foreordainer of all, and that, yet, He does not approve of disbelief.” The group Mu’tazila argue that “If Allâhu ta’âlâ willed the perpetration of evils, evil practices, disobedience (to His commandments) and disbelief would be blessed and rewarded (in the Hereafter). For these things would mean to do what He willed. To do His will means to obey His command.” And the Sunnî answer is as follows: “Obedience that deserves rewards and blessings (thawâb) is only obedience to His commandments. And it is not obedience to do what He willed.”

Abduljabbâr Hemedânî, who was Qâdî of the city of Ray and a scholar in the group Mu’tazila, visited the vizier Sâhib bin Ibâd in his office. Abû Ishâq Isfarâînî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a Sunnî scholar, happened to be there. The following conversation took place between the two scholars:

Abd. – Allâhu ta’âlâ does not will evils and sins. He does not like them and does not create them. These things are created by evil people and by the devil.

Abû Ishâq – All the good things as well as the evil ones are created by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Only what He wills comes into existence in His property.

Abd. – Would our Rabb (Allah) ever will disobedience to Himself.

Abû Ishâq – Could the slaves ever be disobedient to Him if Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will and create (their disobedience)? The slaves (men) use their irâda-i-juz’iyya and wish to commit sins and evils. And Haqq ta’âlâ creates their wishes, if He wills to do so.

Abd. – If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will hidâyat (guidance) for a person, and if He decreed and foreordained that that person would do evils, would He be doing good to him or harming him?

Abû Ishâq – He would be harming him if He did not will to give him his right. However, not to will to take His own right would not mean to harm the slave. He will reward for the tiniest goodness done. Nobody’s good deeds will be left unpaid for. He will forgive most of the wrongdoers, except for (people guilty of) disbelief. As for the question why He wills (and creates) disbelief; Allâhu ta’âlâ has knowledge. He knows everything that will happen in the future. He is Hakîm; whatsoever He does and makes, it is always the best that can ever be (done and made). It depends only and only on His will to bless any of His slaves with His Compassion by guiding him (or her) to the true way of salvation. He does not have to do or make anything. As a matter of fact, the eighth âyat-i-kerîma of Fâtir sûra of the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports: “... For Allâhu ta’âlâ leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. ...” (35-8) In other words, He creates good and evil upon the slave’s will and option. The slave’s will is the cause, the means for the creation. When Believers will îmân and obedience by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills them and creates them. If Allâhu ta’âlâ did not will them, too, no one would be a Believer or an obedient Muslim. On the other hand, when a disbeliever wills disbelief and a sinner wills wrongdoing, He creates those evils if He, too, wills them. No one could be a disbeliever or a sinner if He did not will their evil deeds.

Nothing comes into existence upon only the slave’s will. Its creation takes place when Allâhu ta’âlâ, also, wills it. Allâhu ta’âlâ wills and creates evils and iniquities as well. Yet He does not like them and does not approve of them. As for goodnesses; He both wills them and likes them and approves of them. A fly cannot move its wings unless Allâhu ta’âlâ wills it to do so. All the goodnesses and evils that men do come into existence with His Will. When the slave wants to do something, it does not take place if He does not will it, too. It takes place if He, too, wills it. Something He does not will to exist, does not exist. If it existed after all, it would mean some drawback in His power. Allâhu ta’âlâ is omnipotent. All human beings and genies would be obedient Believers if He willed them to be so. Conversely, they would all be disbelievers if He willed them to be so.

Question: Everything comes into existence with His Will. He has willed the disbelief of disbelievers. They cannot stand against His Will. Therefore, they have been forced to be disbelievers. To command them to be Believers would mean to command something impossible. Why doesn’t He will them to be Believers while commanding them to be Believers? Since He commands everybody to be Believers, why doesn’t He will everybody to be Believers?

Answer: Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Deeds cannot be disapproved of or questioned. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past all the things that would (and will) take place in the future. His Knowledge is dependent upon the things that will happen. In other words, He knew them as they would happen. He knew them as such because they would be so; they do not have to be so because He knew that they would be so. So, Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will is in agreement with His Knowledge. And His Attributes Power and Creativeness also are in agreement with His Will.

The slaves have irâda-i-juz’iyya, i.e. choice and wish. They may wish or not wish to do something. Abû Mansûr Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the two imâms (leaders) of Ahl as-sunnat, states that irâda-i-juz’iyya is not a distinct being by itself. It is not a self-standing existence. It has no relation with the Divine Power (of Allâhu ta’âlâ). Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in eternity that so and so would wish to commit a certain sin (at a certain time). When (the time comes and) that person wishes to commit that sin, Allâhu ta’âlâ also wills and creates it, and thereby the sin takes place. Man’s will is the cause of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s qadâ, decree and creating.

There are three kinds of things that men are unable to do:

1– Things that are themselves impossible to do. An example of them is to make two objects occupy the same space at the same time. A bottle cannot be refilled before the liquid it already contains is poured out.

2– Things that are naturally possible themselves, and yet pragmatically impossible for men to do. An example of them is to lift a mountain.

3– Things that are possible to do. However, men do not do them because Allâhu ta’âlâ knew (in the eternal past) that they would not do them. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not command the first and second kinds of things. Yet He commands the third kind. For instance, He commanded Abû Jahl to be a Believer although He knew in the eternal past that he would not be a Believer, and although He willed his disbelief.

As is seen, man has the choice to do or not to do something, and he does whatever he chooses to do. This choice of the slave’s causes Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Will and creation. When the slave wishes to do something good, He wills and creates it. When the slave wills to commit an evil, He, too, wills it, and creates the evil. He does not force anyone to be a disbeliever or to commit sins.

It is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Divine Law of Causation to create everything through causes. Likewise, He has made man’s will a cause for creating his good and evil deeds. He has sent Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ to men to teach them îmân and the ways of doing good deeds and deserving thawâb (rewards, blessings in the Hereafter). He has commanded them to have îmân and to perform the acts of worship and good deeds, (which are taught in the books written by the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat). He has prohibited them from disbelief and from committing sins and evil deeds. He has given them wisdom, and has enjoined these responsibilities on owners of wisdom.

Allâhu ta’âlâ creates whatsoever He wills. Everything He creates has infinite uses. That is, He is Hakîm. The human mind cannot comprehend these facts. Mind can assess and comprehend only things it has been familiarized with and things perceived through the sense organs. There are innumerable ultimate divine causes and uses in His creating the disbelievers, giving them long lifespans, abundant food, high ranks and positions, and willing that they abide by their disbelief and commit evil deeds; in His creating snakes, swine and poisons; [in His creating sources of destructive energy that are fatal to mankind and ruinous to countries; in His placing stupendously great energy that can annihilate biggest cities in the unimaginably small nucleus of an atom, itself already imperceptibly tiny; in His creating kinds of energy such as light, electricity, magnetism and chemistry; and in His formulating laws and orders in substances, forces and organisms, most of which still remain unsolved and unknown despite all the studies and research carried on under various subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology.] It is a base and inferior deed to make something useless. Everything Allâhu ta’âlâ creates has various uses. His Will, which is one of His eight Attributes, is eternal, i.e. it always existed. Both He Himself and His eight Attributes existed in the eternal past. They are not beings that came into existence afterwards. The heretics called Kerrâmiyya, a sub-group in the group Mushabbiha, asserted that the Divine Attribute ‘Will’ was not eternal, it was an attribute that came into being afterwards. This assertion caused them to become disbelievers. A person who denies the fact that the eight Attributes are eternal, and asserts for instance that one of the Attributes came into existence afterwards, becomes a disbeliever (kâfir).

Allâhu ta’âlâ creates everything through His Attribute Tekwîn, which means to create. He, alone, is the creator of all classes of beings on the earth and in heaven, all substances, objects, peculiarities, events, forces, laws and relations. No other creator exists. No other being can be called ‘creater’, and no other person can be said to have ‘created’ something. An âyat-i-kerîma in the Qur’ân al-kerîm purports that “Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, created all.” The blessed meaning of another âyat-i-kerîma is: “He, alone, is the Creator and the Commander.” An âyat-i-kerîma in the Yâsin sûra purports, “... For He is the Creator Supreme, of skill and knowledge (infinite).” (36-81) He, alone, creates animals that live on land, in water and in air, [microbes, electrons around (the nuclei of) atoms, molecules, ions], men, angels and genies, all beings and their movements, deeds, pauses, acts of worship, sins, good deeds, harms, disbeliefs and beliefs. The group Mu’tazila say, “The slaves create their own good deeds. Haqq ta’âlâ has given the slaves such great power as they can create their own deeds. This is the case with animals as well.” They are wrong.

Men and animals wish to do something by using their irâda-i-juz’iyya. This wish is called kasb (acquiring, acquisition). Allâhu ta’âlâ creates that act if He wills to do so. The slave cannot create anything. We, [i.e. Qâdîzâda Ahmad Efendi,] explained this fact in detail in our booklet Irâda-i-juz’iyya. He, alone, creates the movements of hands and feet, the speech of a tongue, the opening and closing of eyes. He, alone, creates the movements of flies, insects, microbes, stars and winds, [and their vibrations, and electrical attractions and repulsions, gravitations, lifting forces of liquids and gasses]. He, alone, creates and sends sustenance (rizq) for men, animals and genies and for our souls. Food that we consume is our sustenance, whether it reaches us through (ways and means which Islam countenances and which are termed) halâl or through (religiously illegal ways which Islam terms) harâm. According to the group Mu’tazila, food that reaches a person through harâm is not rizq (sustenance). They are wrong in this, too. Life of a living being does not come to an end before the sustenance assigned for it (by Allâhu ta’âlâ in the eternal past) is finished; i.e. it does not die as long as it has sustenance to consume. No one can consume some other person’s sustenance. Acts of worship do not increase a person’s sustenance, yet they add barakat[43] to it. Allâhu ta’âlâ foreordained and allotted everybody’s sustenance in the eternal past. Its amount does not increase or decrease. He, alone, kills the living, gives life to the dead, makes the healthy ill, and makes the ill healthy. Microbes, doctors, and Azrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ (the Angel of Death) are all causes and means. When they take effect, it is Him who creates and gives them the effect. He, alone, creates the burning effect in fire, the cooling effect in snow, [heat, light, and electrolysis in electricity]. Fire, snow and electricity are the apparent causes. They are the means and conditions which Allâhu ta’âlâ has made causes for His creating. [He, alone, creates our sense organs as well as the sensory powers they enjoy; the events of nutrition, reproduction, excretion, oxidation and osmosis in cells; the heart, blood, the functions of the circulatory system and other tissues, organs and systems, and the order whereby they interact. Communists, heathens and miscreants and] heretics, [who have existed since very old times,] say that every substance and every force have their own properties whereby they effect and that fire, for instance, has burning properties whereby it always burns. They are quite wrong. In fact, according to the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, the effects that the causes appear to possess are not their essential properties. It is His Divine Law of Causation to create the effects and functions in the causes as soon as He creates the causes themselves. Fire will never be able to burn if He does not create its burning property and it will not burn a person who falls into it unless He wills it to do so. Substances do not have any properties in their essence. Haqq ta’âlâ creates the properties of substances and the effects and functions in the causes. He does not create the so-called properties and effects if He does not will to do so. He would have created heat in snow and coldness in fire if He had willed to do so. He, alone, creates the cutting effect on the sword, the piercing power displayed through a bullet, and the fatality that poison seems to exercise. He creates the drowning of a person who falls into deep water. He would not drown him, and on the contrary, he would, for instance, become healthier, if He willed so. He, alone, creates a bird’s and an aircraft’s flying, [the air’s power to lift as well as the various types of friction]. He could as well not create such properties and forces and not make them fly. He creates diseases and various faculties in various medicines. Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ sat on Nimrod’s fire, and it did not burn him at all. It would have burned him if it had been the fire’s essential property to burn. It is not the fire itself that makes the burning. Allâhu ta’âlâ makes it burn. Allâhu ta’âlâ creates the properties and functions He wills in substances. The deed that He creates comes into existence through the substances. However, the ultimate Divine Habit of Allâhu ta’âlâ is such that He has given certain different properties and effects to every substance. He has made different substances causes and means for the changes in one another. He creates wheat from grains of wheat, and barley from seeds of barley. He creates man from man and animals from their own genera. [He creates plague from plague bacilli and meningitis from meningoceles. In different substances He creates different interchanges of electrons between their atoms, different radioactivities and different reactions in their nuclei.] He creates satiation with food. If He had not created satiation, we would not feel satiated after eating tons of food. If He had not created thirst we would not feel thirsty even if we did not drink any water.

There is no other creator besides Him. He is the creator of the entire existence. He makes substances move. He changes their places. He takes them from one time to another. He converts them from one state into another. He creates things that the minds of mankind marvel at. From a drop of semen and infinitesimally small spermatozoa He creates a mature man. [From a great Prophet such as Nûh (Noah) ‘alaihis-salâm’ He creates a disobedient, atheistic and asinine son named Canaan. From a stone-hearted and narrow-minded unbeliever like Abû Jahl He creates a faithful son, the Believer named Ikrima. He creates disbelief in the heart of a base unbeliever who announces and advertises His existence and Will and the greatness of His power with the perfectly systematic structures, properties and movements of his hands, tongue and all the motes of his body. He creates such people’s attacking the religion in such fury as they unleash all their forces based on diction, penmanship, rank and wealth. He makes His own creature His enemy. He creates a talent, a force called ‘heart’ in the human heart, which He sometimes illuminates, purifies and makes a mirror reflecting His existence, and sometimes a blackened rubbish heap emitting disbelief and iniquity.] He creates a nuclear energy powerful enough to blow up a mountain, in the depth of the nucleus of an atom, which cannot be seen even with a microscope. He creates sugar in the beet; the power of assimilation termed photosynthesis in the leaves; honey in the bee; countless grains of wheat from one grain; a living animal from the lifeless egg; fragrance from the flower; leaves, flowers and fruits from a dry tree; animals, flowers and trees in water; and soft water in hard water. [He creates chemical reactions and many physical and chemical properties. He converts the soil into plants, and plants into animals. He decomposes human beings and animals and converts them into earthen substances, liquids and gasses. He creates the opposite of everything, reversible reactions, and even from them, other reversals. He creates everything in a perfectly calculated order in this factory of the universe. Day by day, it is being realized better under the lights of science that all the apparently destructive and ruinous changes are in actual fact created with very well calculated and utterly harmonious relations and in an amazingly perfect order.]

8– He says, “When the Messenger of Allah was requested to define the Firqa-i-nâjiyya, i.e. the only group of Muslims who will be saved from going to Hell, of all the seventy-three groups; he stated: My Ahl-i-bayt are like Nûh’s Arch. He who gets on board will be saved.”

The fact, however, is that this statement (of the Prophet’s) was made at another time. The blessed Prophet’s answer to the question mentioned above is quoted in (the authentic Islamic) books as, “The Firqa-i-nâjiyya are those who follow me and my Sahâba.” He is shameless enough to make changes even in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Muslims who hold the true îmân and follow the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and the Ashâb-i-kirâm, are called Ahl as-sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at.

9– He makes a mockery of himself as follows: “All the Sahâba were neither Mu’tazilî, nor Shâfi’î, nor Mâlikî, nor Hanafî, nor Hanbalî. The group of salvation are those who follow the Messenger of Allah and the Ahl-i-bayt. He who is not in the path guided by the Ahl-i-bayt will not be saved.” With these words he tries to make others believe that he holds the same belief as did the Ahl-i-bayt.

The truth is that the belief held by the Ahl-i-bayt ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ was the belief held by Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, who in his turn shared the same belief with the rest of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. And this belief is the very belief taught by the Messenger of Allâh ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’. Thousands of Sunnî scholars gathered the tenets of this belief and wrote them in their books along with the documents and sources of each and every one of them. A group of people far below the grade of ijtihâd and without any expertise in the Islamic sciences derived wrong meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, called their concoctions and absurdities the ‘madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt’, and tried to make others believe them. Enemies of Islam incited this fitna and wrote books insidiously. Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa learned most of his knowledge from his master, Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq, who was a very much beloved member of the Ahl-i-bayt, and conveyed his learnings to his disciples. Then, ‘Alevî’ (Alawî), which means a follower of Imâm Alî and a member of the madhhab of Ahl-i-bayt, is synonymous with ‘Sunnî’. Therefore, the group with whom the attribute ‘Alawî’ would go appropriately are the Sunnî Muslims. People who live in Irân, Syria and Iraq and call themselves Alawîs today are not Alawîs at all.

The following observations are made in the six hundred and seventh page of the book Mawdû-ât-ul-’ulûm: All the Ashâb-i-kirâm held the same credal tenets. For they had had the honour of attending the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and serving him. Under the edification of that sohbat, they had completely liberated themselves from the shackles of mistrust. They had developed full understanding of the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs and a perfect and unshakable belief in the truth revealed in these most authentic sources. No sooner had the last members of the Ashâb-i-kirâm migrated from the world to the Hereafter than ignorant people began to appear here and there and write duplicitous books which were merely heaps of platitudes reflecting their personal sensuous indulgences. With time these blind adventurers lost their way for good and misled many others as well. Bid’ats and heresies began to spread far and wide. Muslims parted into seventy-three groups. A group of scholars protected themselves from all the eccentricities they were being tempted into, survived the devil’s persistent efforts to misguide them, and managed to abide by the path led by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. The people of this right path were called Ahl as-sunnat. The scholars of (this lucky group called) Ahl as-sunnat parted into various Madhhabs in matters pertaining to acts of worship, personal behaviours and social transactions. Four of these Madhhabs have reached our time intact so as to be correctly learned from books. These Madhhabs are Hanafî, Shâfi’î, Mâlikî, and Hanbalî. No other true Madhhab exists any longer. It is a fruit of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion (over Muslims) that the group of Ahl as-sunnat parted into different Madhhabs. The hundred and fifth âyat-i-kerîma of Âl-i-’Imrân sûra purports: “Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs: ...” (3-105) Baydâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’ explains this âyat-i-kerîma as follows: “Jews and Christians had been informed of the true path whereon on they were to be united, along with clear evidences and authentic documentary sources. Yet they could not understand the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ, that He is unlike His creatures, and many other facts about the Hereafter. They passed various provisional judgements about them. O Muslims! Be not like them, and do not part into sects like them!” This âyat-i-kerîma proscribes disunity on tenets of belief. It does not prohibit parting into Madhhabs in the teachings of fiqh or in the technicalities pertaining to acts of worship. For Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “It is rahmat-i-ilâhî (compassion of Allâhu ta’âlâ) for my Ummat to part into groups [in the knowledge of fiqh].” Another hadîth-i-sherîf reads as follows: “A mujtahid is given two blessings (thawâb) if his ijtihâd turns out to be correct. However, if he is mistaken in his ijtihâd he will still be rewarded with one blessing.”

10– He writes as follows: “The âyat-i-kerîma telling about Abû Bakr’s having been together (with the Messenger of Allah) is a sign showing his belieflessness and infamy, rather than his virtue. That night Jebrâîl came down and said, ‘The unbelievers have reached a unanimous decision on your murder tonight. Tell all your Sahâba not to go out of their homes tonight. Go to the (so-called) cave, alone.’ So, Hadrat Messenger convened the Sahâba towards sunset and told them about the commandment. That night Hadrat Alî, despite his child age, fearlessly took the Prophet’s place in his bed. As Rasûlullah was on his way to the cave, he saw someone approaching from the distance. He stopped and waited. When that person came near him, he saw that it was Abû Bakr. Presently the Prophet asked him why he was out despite Allah’s commandment. The latter’s answer was: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was anxious about you. I could not leave you alone and sit at home.’ Jebrâîl came and warned: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not leave Abû Bakr! If the unbelievers come here and catch Abû Bakr, they will follow you, find you, and kill you.’ Reluctantly, Hadrat Messenger took Abû Bakr along to the cave. For Hadrat Messenger did not feel safe against the unbelievers and against Abû Bakr. Haqq ta’âlâ had informed him that the unbelievers and Abû Bakr were going to conspire against him, that Abû Bakr meant harm, and that they were ‘saying things that were not in their hearts.’ There are many âyats informing about their conspiracies. The Messenger of Allah did not need companions or comrades. The âyat, ‘He (Allah) hath reinforced thee with soldiers that thou dost not see,’ proves this fact. Abû Bakr did not join any of the holy wars and somehow deserted from all of them. There are many âyats exemplifying friendships between Believers and unbelievers. The Arabic language teems with examples wherein the word ‘sâhib = companion’ is used to describe a donkey’s keeping company with a man. Then, Abû Bakr’s having been called ‘sâhib = companion’ should not be construed as a sign of virtue that he was in possession of. If the anxiety he felt in the cave had been on behalf of the Messenger of Allah, then it would have been an act of worship. In that case, to tell him not to be anxious would in effect have meant to prevent an act of worship, which, in its turn, is not something that the Messenger of Allah could be imagined to have done. If his anxiety proceeded from sinfulness, then he did not have belief in the Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ. In that case, what use could there have been for him in that companionship? And it would have been useless to tell him not to be anxious. Preventing a sinful act is, on the other hand, something the Messenger of Allah normally should have done. The Messenger had told him, before, that he, (the Prophet, that is,) would be permanently protected against enemies. Abû Bakr did not have confidence in that (divine assurance). It would not be incorrect to say that his wailing and crying served no purpose unless it was intended to betray (their hiding place) to the unbelievers. If he had had îmân, Allâhu ta’âlâ would have protected him against the biting of the snake. Nor could the Prophet’s consolatory remark, ‘Allah is with us,’ considered to have reflected any credit on him. Otherwise, the âyat, ‘When three people talk secretly among themselves, Allâhu ta’âlâ is the fourth’, would necessarily connote that disbelievers who talked secretly were to be held