Sahaba 3

The book Maktûbât (Letters), originally in the Fârisî language, consists of three volumes. It also contains a few letters in Arabic. An elaborate printing of the book was accomplished in 1393 [1973 A.D.] in Nâzimâbâd, Karachi, Pakistan. It was reproduced by offset process in Istanbul. A copy of the Fârisî version exists in the library of the university of Columbia in New York, U.S.A. Maktûbât was rendered into the Arabic language by Muhammad Murâd Qazânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, and the Arabic version was printed in two volumes in the printhouse called Mîriyya and located in the blessed city of Mekka in 1316. A copy of the Arabic version occupies number 53 in the municipality library at Bâyezid, Istanbul. It was reproduced by offset process in 1963, in Istanbul. A number of the books written by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ were reprinted in Karachi, Pakistan. Of those books, Ithbât-un-nubuwwa was reproduced by offset process in Istanbul in 1394 [1974 A.D.]. The marginal notes on the book, which is in Arabic, provide a biography of Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’. In the following section we shall present an abridgement from the biography. People who would like to know Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ more closely and with more detail would have to read the Fârisî book Umdat-ul-maqâmât, by Khwâja Muhammad Fadlullah, and the book Barakât, by Muhammad Hâshim Badahshî. The latter one, also in the Fârisî language and reproduced by offset in Istanbul, is of great help for the acquisition of stronger ikhlâs and more conscientious îmân.

(Muhammad Murâd Qazânî was born in the Ufa town of the Qazan (Kazan) city of Russia in 1272. Completing his madrasa education in his hometown, he went to Bukhârâ in 1293 [1876 A.D.]. He studied higher Islamic sciences in Bukhâra and Tashkend, and went to India and thence to Hijâz in 1295. He carried on his education in the blessed city of Medîna, and attained a certain degree in Tasawwuf as well. In 1302 he translated the book Rashahât and then the book Maktûbât into Arabic. He also wrote a biography of Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ in Arabic).

Muhammad Murâd Munzâwî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was another scholar. He did not translate Maktûbât into Arabic.

There are various ways to learn the facts about past people; how they were, their knowledge and ignorance, their guidance and aberration, etc. The first way is, for instance, if they founded a madhhab or a regime, to study the institution they founded. The second way is to read their works, books. The third way is to hear people who are unprejudiced about them and who mention their merits and imperfections objectively. Now we will study Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ from these three viewpoints:

1– Imâm-i-Rabbânî, mujaddid wa munawwir alf-i-thânî, Ahmad ibn Abd-il-Ahad, has an ancestral chain that reaches back to the Amîr-ul-mu’minîn ’Umar-ul-Fârûq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ with the twenty-ninth paternal link. All his grandfathers were pious and virtuous people, and each of them was a greatest scholar of his time.

2– Implicit and indirect good news herald a person’s advent before he is born. Adumbration of this sort does not clearly name the person himself or his birthplace. An example is the news foretelling the advent of Mahdî. The occasional false pretensions to the name of Mahdî in recent history were merely attempts to exploit this latency. The same rule applies to the news foretelling our religious leaders (imâms). Examples of such news are the following hadîth-i-sherîfs: “If the religion (Islam) fled the earth and went to [the cluster of stars called] the Pleiades, a youngster of Asiatic origin would apprehend it and bring it back.” “Men will get into insoluble trouble and look for a scholar to solve their problem. They will see that none is superior to the scholar (who will be living) in Medîna-i-munawwara.” “Do not speak ill of the Qoureishîs. A scholar of their descent will illuminate the entire world with knowledge.” Of these hadîth-i-sherîfs, the first one refers to Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa, (the founder and leader of the Hanafî Madhhab,) the second one alludes to Imâm Mâlik bin Enes, (the founder and leader of the Mâlikî Madhhab,) and the third one foretells the advent of Imâm Shâfi’î, (the founder and leader of the Shâfi’î Madhhab) ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum ajma’în’, according to other Islamic scholars. All these conclusions, regardless of the authenticity of the facts they are based on, are of conjectural capacity and therefore they are not definite knowledge. Whereas they are identical with knowledge in the friend’s view, they aggravate the foe’s stubbornness and vulgarize the denier’s nescience. For, it is either moral laxity and ignominy or vulgar ignorance and recalcitrance to deny something in the face of the great number and the high status of the people who believe it. Such is the case with Wahhâbîs, who obstinately deny the hadîth-i-sherîfs, which we have quoted above, about our religious leaders (imâms). The same applies to the deniers of Mahdî, for in effect it means to deny the so many hadîth-i-sherîfs (concerning Mahdî). For this reason, (some) Islamic scholars say that a person who denies Mahdî becomes a disbeliever. By the same token, Jews and Christians deny Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ although the good news about his advent is given in their holy books. We Muslims believe in him positively. Likewise, also, there are pieces of good news concerning Imâm Rabbânî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’, which are definite and positive facts in the view of his friends, although, by contrast, they exacerbate the denial and the obduracy of the enemy. The Believers’ faith is in their own favour, and the adversaries’ denial is at their own peril. In fact, a Believer ought to have a good opinion about another Believer, even though he is not someone he knows well.

Would it not, then, be wiser by far to have a good opinion about the Awliyâ, who are praised in myriads of books and whose own books fill the entire world and whose followers have always been the most valued and beloved ones of their times and whose goodnesses shine far and near with solar brightness?

3– Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Of my Ummat (Muslims), there will come someone nicknamed Sila. Through his shafâ’at (intercession with Allâhu ta’âlâ for the slaves), many people will enter Paradise.” This hadîth-i-sherîf is written in the book Jam’ul-jawâmî, by Imâm Suyûtî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. Providing an extensive explanation for the Awliyâ’s words on ‘Wahdat-i-wujûd’, Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ proved that they were compatible with Islam, and combined the two very vast Islamic oceans, i.e. the Ahkâm-i-islâmiyya (the Islamic principles, tenets, acts of worship, commandments and prohibitions, ritual practices, etc.), and Tasawwuf (knowledge pertaining to heart and soul; orders, paths, methods and techniques for the purification and improvement of the heart and soul), (which had hitherto been considered apart from each other). This won him the epithet Sila, (which means reunion; combiner). One of his letters ends with the prayer of thanksgiving, “May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who has made me a sila between two oceans!” He was known with this nickname among his companions. No one before him had won the epithet ‘Sila’, which exists literally in the hadîth-i-sherîf giving the good news. It is a fact in the sunlight that the epithet had been meant for Imâm Rabbânî. He who believes this will be beloved to him. Supposing his belief were wrong, neither in this world nor in the next would he be blamed for having had a good opinion about a Muslim.

Imâm Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ stated as follows, in versified narration:

The doctor and the naturalist supposed that when men
Die and decay, they will by no means come back to life.
Were your word to prove right, I would lose nothing;
Since I am right, in Hell will you spend the endless life.

4– Mawlânâ Jâmî ‘quddisa sirruh’, in his book Nafahât, quotes the Shaikh-ul-islâm Ahmad Nâmiqî Jâmî as having stated as follows: “I subjected myself to the total amount, and even more, of the mortifications and afflictions suffered by all the Awliya, and Allâhu ta’âlâ blessed me with all the spiritual states and goodnesses enjoyed by the Awliyâ. Every four hundred years Allâhu ta’âlâ blesses one of His slaves named Ahmad with such grand gifts, in such transparency as all people will see the gifts clearly.” There are four hundred and thirty-five (435) years between Ahmad Jâmî and Imâm (Ahmad) Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’, and throughout that period there was no other Walî with the name Ahmad and the same degree of greatness. In all likelihood, Imâm Rabbânî must have been the target of Ahmad Jâmî’s congratulatory innuendo ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. This presumption finds credence in another statement made, again, by the Shaikh-ul-islâm Ahmad Jâmî ‘quddisa sirruh’: “After me there will be seventeen people carrying my name. The last one, which is the greatest and the highest, will come after the first millennium (A.H.).”

5– Halîl-ul-Bedahshî ‘quddisa sirruh’ states: “Of the great scholars constituting the (chain of scholars called) Silsila-t-uz-zahab, there will come a paragon of perfection in India. He will be peerless in his century.” Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ is the ineluctable addressee of the implication in this statement, since India produced no other scholar in the same silsila.

6– Imâm Rabbânî Ahmad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’ was born in the city of Sihrind, situated on the route between Lahore and Delhi, India. ‘Sihrind’ means ‘black lion’. For, the city was first established by Sultân Fîrûz Shâh on a site that had formerly been a jungle of lions. It was not long after being born when Imâm Rabbânî caught an infantile disease. So his father took him to his own master Shâh Kemâl Kihtelî Qâdirî. “Don’t worry,” said the profoundly learned scholar. “This child prodigy is going to lead a long life and make a very great person.” Then he held the child by the hand and kissed him on the mouth. Upon this the fayz and nûr (light, haloe) of Abdulqâdir Geylânî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ pervaded his blessed body. He received his initial education from his father, learned Arabic, and memorized the Qur’ân al-kerîm in his early childhood. Possessed of a mellifluous voice, he recited the sûras like a nightingale singing. He memorized several booklets on various sciences and went to the city of Siyâlkût (Sialkot), where he studied some positive sciences and learned a great deal from Mawlânâ Kemâladdîn Kishmîrî ‘quddisa sirruh’, who was the highest scholar of his time and the great teacher who educated the renowned scholar Abdulhakîm Siyalkûtî. He received ijâzât[61] in Hadîth, in Tafsîr and in sciences of Usûl (methodology, procedures) from Qâdî Behlûl Bedahshânî, who was an ’âlim-i-rabbânî. He was only seventeen years old when he completed his education, in possession of ijâzât in all the branches of religious and positive sciences, as well as in sciences called Furû’ and Usûl. During his education, he received, through his father, the fayz and flavour in the hearts of the great men of Tasawwuf affiliated with the orders of Qâdirî and Cheshtî. His father was still alive when he already began to teach the disciples practical and spiritual sciences. In the meantime he wrote quite a number of books, among which are Risâla-t-ut-tehlîliyya, Risâla-t-ur-radd-ir-rawâfid, and Risâla-t-u-ithbât-un-nubuwwa (Proof of Prophethood). He was specially interested in belles-lettres. His eloquence, rhetoric, quickness of comprehension and great intelligence were objects of bewilderment for all the people around him.

7– With such superlative knowledge and unequalled spiritual perfection, his heart was burning with the love of the great guides of (the order of Tasawwuf called) Ahrâriyya. He was reading books written by the scholars of that path. A year after his father’s decease he left Sihrind for (a voyage to Mekka for the performance of the Islamic pilgrimage termed) hajj. Enroute to his destination, he called at Dehli, [i.e. Delhi,] and paid a visit to (the great spiritual master and scholar named) Muhammad Bâqî Billâh ‘quddisa sirruh’, who lived there. As soon as he entered the blessed sage’s presence, a nûr (light, haloe) shone up in his heart. He felt attracted, like a needle that was caught in a magnetic area. His heart became inundated with things unknown to him and which he had not heretofore heard of. He was going to come back after hajj and reap from the mellow spiritual source, yet the affection and the desire in his heart was too strong for him to wait that long. So the following morning he entered the great scholar’s presence again and extended his wish to attain the Ahrâriyya fayz. He remained there, in the blessed master’s service. Paying utmost attention to his own manners as well as to the perfectly adept guide’s words, he attached his heart to him. He preferred being with the owner of the Kâ’ba to going to the Kâ’ba. Exerting all his exclusively high talents and his well-endowed personality, he attained all sorts of perfections, which became manifest on his gifted person. So kind and magnanimous was his master’s compassionate concentration on him that it was hardly beyond two months’ time when he attained unprecedented spiritual realizations. A couple of months sufficed for him to become entitled to an unconditional authorization in the path of Ahrâriyya from his master, who ordered him to go back home thereafter, transferring most of his disciples to his care and sending them along to Sihrind. Back home, he began to spread zâhirî[62] and bâtinî[63] knowledge and nûrs to the world and to educate his disciples and students and guide them to spiritual heights. He was now an owner of universal reputation, and his own master joined in the influx of his admirers to reap spiritual lights from him. He would fill everybody’s heart with knowledge and haloes, and resuscitate and invigorate the religion of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’. His utterly effective letters would encourage the time’s pâdishâhs, governors, commanders and judges to rally to the cause of Islam and to hold fast to the Sunnat-i-saniyya. He would raise a great number of scholars and Awliyâ.

8– Although he had acquired the spiritual knowledge (’ilm-i-bâtin) from Muhammad Bâqî ‘quddisa sirruh’, Allâhu ta’âlâ conferred even more upon him. And even this exceptional knowledge, which was peculiar to him, he publicized worldover. His master also would come to attain pieces from that knowledge, enter his presence and sit with adab (suitable manners). It was on one of those occasions that his master came, sensed that his master-disciple was busy with his own heart, told the servant not to disturb him (Imâm Rabbânî), and did not enter the room, waiting silently at the door. Some time later Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ stood up and asked who was at the door. “It is this faqîr, Muhammad Bâqî,” called his master ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. Upon hearing the name, Imâm Rabbânî ran to the door and welcomed his master humbly and with suitable manners. His master would always give him glad tidings, praise him in the presence of his acquaintances, and command his disciples to adapt themselves to Imâm Rabbânî after his decease.

9– Sayyid Muhammad Nu’mân ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, a very great scholar and one of highest disciples of Khwâja Muhammad Bâqî ‘quddisa sirruh’, relates: When my teacher told me to adapt myself to Imâm Rabbânî (after his death), I tried to tell him that it would be unnecessary, saying, “The mirror of my heart will only be towards your bright heart.” My teacher retorted, “What do you think Ahmad is? His solar light outshines thousands of stars like us.”

10– Khwâja Muhammad Bâqî wrote as follows to some of his acquaintances, who were the greatest scholars of his time: A youngster came from the city of Sihrind. He has very much knowledge. And his behaviour perfectly reflects his knowledge. He stayed with this faqîr, (the great scholar means himself,) for a few days. I have seen much in him. I understand that he is going to be a sun that will enlighten the entire world. His relatives and all his brothers also are brilliant, valuable and knowledgeable heroes! And his sons, especially, are a treasure of Allâhu ta’âlâ each.

11– He said on another occasion: For the recent three or four years I have been exerting myself to guide others to the right path, to the way of salvation. Al-hamdulillah (May gratitude and praise be to Allâhu ta’âlâ)! My exertion has not come to naught, for a person like him has come out.

12– Khwâja Muhammad Bâqî ‘quddisa sirruh’ stated on another occasion: I brought this seed, which is a medicament for hearts and a cure for souls, from Samarkand and Bukhâra, and sowed it in the fertile soil of India. I spared no effort for the education and guidance of the disciples. When he surpassed all degrees and attained the highest grades of all sorts of perfection, I withdrew myself from between and left the disciples to his care.

13– In a letter that Khwâja Muhammad Bâqî Billâh ‘quddisa sirruh’ wrote to Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruhumâ’, he states as follows: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless you with the lot of attaining the highest grade and guiding all others as well! A line:

“The unornamented truth is that the Shaikh-ul-islâm Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated, ‘I was educated by Abul Hasan Harkânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. However, if Harkânî were alive now, he would ignore that he had been my teacher, come and kneel down before me.’ My inaction is not due to complacency or snub; on the contrary, I am awaiting a sign implying admission. This is the truth of the matter. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless us with guidance! May He protect us from conceit and vanity! Sayyid Sâlih of Nishâpûr, who will be bringing you this letter of mine, came to me for the cure of his heart. Because I do not have time and I am not in a convenient state, I am sending him to you lest he should waste his time with me. Inshâ-Allah, he will attain your high and generous attention and obtain something proportional to his talents.

14– “May Allâhu ta’âlâ, for the sake of His beloved Awliyâ, whom He has chosen for Himself, guide also those wretched and impoverished mendicants of knowledge and sagacity, the hapless count-outs of all windfalls, and make them attain their wishes! I have been unable to present my true respect to your rank, which is a resource of Awliyâ. Yes, this is the only proper way of addressing oneself to a rank whose states are true to its name. To call you ‘my disciple’ would mean to display the most shameless insolence and to obscure the truth with the apparent contraposition. I request your benedictions, sir.”

15– In addition to his own master, most of the scholars and sages of his time mentioned his name with laudatory remarks that he perfectly deserved, refuted those who were uncivil enough to speak ill of him, and all of them gathered like moths around the light of his ma’rifat. The greatest and the most distinguished ones among them were Fadlullah Burhanpûrî, Mawlânâ Hasan-ul-ghawsî, Mawlânâ Abdulhakîm Siyâlkûtî, Mawlânâ Jemâladdîn Tâluwî, Mawlânâ Ya’qûb Sirfî, Mawlânâ Hasan-ul-Qubâdânî, Mawlânâ Mîrekshâh, Mawlânâ Mîr Mu’mîn, Mawlânâ Jân Muhammad Lâhurî and Mawlânâ Abd-us-salâm Diyukî. Muhaddith Abdulhaqq Dahlawî spent a greater part of his life criticizing him; however, when the mirror of his heart rid the rust and dust of his nafs so that the rays of that sun illuminated his heart, he began to praise him and to refute the slanders of the stubborn deniers.

16– Fadl Burhanpûrî, for instance, would take pleasure from listening to laudatory remarks about his beautiful attributes and enjoy hearing about his ma’rifats. He would say that he (Imâm Rabbânî) was the Qutb-ul-aqtâb, i.e. the imâm (religious leader, the highest scholar) of his time, that his reports about the secrets of truth were always right and valuable, and that his adherence to all the subtleties of the Islamic religion and his universal popularity attested to the fact that his words were true and to the high status of the spiritual states he were experiencing and displaying. During the Imâm’s ‘quddisa sirruh’ imprisonment, he would pray for his release after each of the five daily prayers of namâz. When people from the neighborhood of Sihrind came to him to express their wishes to become his disciples, he would rebuke them, saying, “So you live at a place close to Imâm Rabbânî and look for knowledge and ma’rifat at other places. Leaving the sun, you run to the stars for light. You astonish me.”

17– Hasan-ul-ghawsî would praise him very much. He writes as follows about the imâm in his book Manâqib-ul-awliyâ: “The owner of the rank of Mahbûbiyyat, the ornament of the chairmanship of the assembly of Wahdâniyyat, the expert of the rank of Ferdiyyat, and the chief of the rank of Qutbiyyat.”

18– Mawlânâ Abdulhakîm Siyâlkûtî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ was another admirer of Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ who paid profound respect to the Imâm. He would struggle against his deniers. He would call him ‘Mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî (Restorer of the Second Millennium). He is said (by the Islamic scholars) to have been the first person to call him this name. He would admonish the deniers, saying, “It is ignorance to raise objections to great people’s words without properly understanding what they mean. People who do so end up in perdition. To reject the words of Ahmad the master, who is a source of knowledge, fayz and irfân, stems from not knowing and understanding him.”

19– Muhammad Mu’min Kubrawî of Belh city sent one of his disciples to Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ for inâbat (repentance for sins), tawba (repentance and invocation for the forgiveness of sins, and resolution not to commit sins again), and sulûk (a term in Tasawwuf, which means ‘to enter a religious order; to make progress in one of the paths of Tasawwuf’). When the disciple entered Imâm Rabbânî’s presence, he conveyed the salâms which he brought from his master, from Sayyid Mîrekshâh, from Hasan Qubâdânî, and from Qâdil Qudât Tulek, and added: My master Mîr Muhammad Mu’min said, “I would go and be blessed with his lectures and serve him till death were it not for the hindrances such as my old age and the great distance. I would try to enlighten my heart with his nûrs, which have not fallen to anyone else’s lot. My body is far away, down here, yet my heart is up there. I beg him to accept this faqîr, (i.e. Muhammad Mu’min himself,) as if I were one of his pure disciples in his presence, and to scatter his blessed nûrs into my soul. Kiss his hand on my behalf, too!” The disciple kissed the Imâm’s hand again and, as he was leaving he said, “The blessed people in the city of Belh request of you to send them letters telling about sublime facts.” Upon this Imâm Rabbânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu sirrah-ul-’azîz’ wrote the ninety-ninth letter and gave it to him together with a few other letters. Some time later some devotees from Belh came to India with the report that upon receiving the Imâm’s ‘quddisa sirruh’ letter Mîr Muhammad Mu’min had read it with exuberant satisfaction and had said, “If great Awliyâ such as Bâyezîd the Sultân-ul-’ârifîn and Junayd the Sayyid-ut-tâifa were living now they would kneel down before Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ and not even for a moment would they be absent from his service.”

20– One of the scholars of his time said, “The share that falls to the comprehension of scholars from Imâm Rabbânî’s ‘quddisa sirruh’ writings is identical with whatsoever ignorant people understand from the (words of metaphysical level called) hikmat that they hear from the (deeply learned and wise scholars called) hakîm.”

21– Another pious scholar of his time, whose religious practices were in harmony with his religious knowledge, observed as follows: “Experts of knowledge pertaining to heart and soul do either tasnîf (composition) or te’lîf (compilation). Tasnîf means an ’ârif’s writing the occult and mysterical pieces of knowledge that are imparted to him (and inspired into his purified heart). And te’lîf means to compile others’ words, to arrange them in a self-established order and then write them. It has been a long time since the business of tasnîf has left the world, although te’lîf still survives. However, what Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ has been writing perfectly fall into the category of tasnîf. They are not te’lîf at all. I am not one of his disciples. Yet I have been studying his writings minutely, and for reason’s sake I have not so far found a single word belonging to others. All of them reflect his own kashfs (findings of the heart) and the pieces of knowledge flowing into his heart. All of them are sublime, acceptable, beautiful, and compatible with the Islamic religion.”

22– When the greatest qâdî (Islamic judge) of his time was asked about the (spiritual) states that Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ had been experiencing and displaying, he replied, “The words and the states of the scholars of the knowledge of heart and soul are beyond the capacity of our minds. However, when I saw the states of Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’, I developed a realization and comprehension of the states and the words of the past Awliyâ. Before that, whenever I read about the states of the (past) Awliyâ and their peculiar acts of worship, I speculated a certain degree of hyperbolism about the written accounts. Yet, seeing his states and manners eliminated my speculations and hesitations.”

23– Abdulhaqq Dahlawî, a scholar of Hadîth, was formerly opposed to Imâm Rabbânî’s ‘quddisa sirruh’ writings; he would despise them and write refutations to them. Later, however, Allâhu ta’âlâ blessed him with seeing the truth; penitent of his former attitude, he made tawba. He wrote to Mawlânâ Husâmaddîn Ahmad, one of the graduates of Khwâja Muhammad Bâqî, about his tawba, as follows: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ’ bless Ahmad-i-Fârûqî with (all sorts of) salvation! This faqîr’s (Hadrat Dahlawî’s) heart is now true towards him. Curtains of humanity have gone up, and the blemishes of the nafs have cleared. Aside from the spiritual solidarity, it stands to reason that a religious superior like him could not have been defied. How unwise and crass I must have been! No words I would say now would suffice to express the shame and inferiority that my heart feels towards him. It belongs to Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, to convert hearts and to change spiritual states.” In another letter, which Abdulhaqq Dahlawî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ wrote to his own children, he said, “Tear the drafts of my letters which I wrote in opposition to the writings of Ahmad Fârûqî ‘sallamahullâhu ta’âlâ’! No longer is there any blur about him in my heart, which feels quite true towards him now.” This shows that his former opposition was merely human. It was the case also with all the other deniers. Jenâb-i-Haqq (Allâhu ta’âlâ) chooses some of His slaves and blesses them with His Compassion, saving them from the Hell of denial and guiding them to the Paradise of affirmation. The reasons for his tawba are not known for certain. According to some reports, he had a dream in which the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ reprimanded him. Some scholars say, on the other hand, that he drew lots on the Qur’ân al-kerîm, that once the âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “... If he is a liar, it is at his own peril. If he is telling the truth, Allâhu ta’âlâ will send onto you some of what He has promised to you,” came out, and that at another time the outcome was the âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “They are the beloved slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Even in their business of buying and selling, their heart is not without Allâhu ta’âlâ in it.” According to a third report, the objections that he raised against him were consequent upon a letter that the adversaries of the blessed Imâm (Rabbânî) had sent to him, (i.e. to Abdulhaqq Dahlawî). When he realized the truth he repented and made tawba.

A note: When his children received their father’s letter, they destroyed the drafts. Yet other people also had had letters from him, (which contained his former opinions about Imâm Rabbânî). Those letters still existed in a few books written in Persian. However, beautiful refutations were written to those letters. Short biographies of the scholars who praised Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ would make up an entire book.

24– THE FIFTH PERSPECTIVE: When a person rises to fame owing to his virtues and perfections, a concomitant increase in jealousy follows. This has been the case since (the first man and the earliest prophet) Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. The jealousy of the ignorant is symptomatic of the abundance of the blessings possessed by the envied person. Our Master, the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states: “Of all people, prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâtu wa-s-salâm’, suffer the most disasters; next after them are scholars and then come the sâlih (pious, devoted) Muslims.” For that matter, Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ had a considerable share from disasters. How could it have been otherwise, since he was the mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî? In other words, Allâhu ta’âlâ had sent him a thousand years after the Prophet, our Master ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, as a restorer to rehabilitate and strengthen the Islamic religion. Is it an easy job to rehabilitate something, to restore it to its pristine purity, and to undo all the so many superstitions that have become established customs throughout years? Would it have been a simple fait accompli to strengthen Islam and purge it from the deeply rooted impurities at a time when wrongdoings, heresies and superstitions are on the increase, aberrations so widespread, and sham dervishes of Wahdat-i-wujûd are known as Islamic scholars?

25– Mawlânâ Shâh Abdul’azîz (1239 [1824 A.D.]), a son of Shâh Ahmad Waliyyullah (1179), ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ’, observes as follows: Wahdat-i-wujûd deteriorated into various anomalies among the common people. Misunderstanding the words of the great, the ignorant deviated from Islam in the process of time. The highly esoteric and valuable science (,i.e. Wahdat-i-wujûd,) became a demolisher of Islam, and a source of heresy for the shaikhs of Tekke, whose aberrant paths spread among the ignorant populace. [The comatose trends buttered the bread of the enemies of Islam. Representing some irreligious and immoral people as poets of Tasawwuf, they designed school curricula containing their irreligious words, thus having the younger generations read them in the name of poetry.] Allâhu ta’âlâ, with His infinite compassion for His slaves, created a great mujaddid, Imâm Rabbânî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. He blessed him with profound knowledge. Through him, He purified the minds of His slaves, separated right from wrong, and cleansed many a heart from heresy.

These magnificent accomplishments incurred the spite of some people and a torrent of persecutions, arrows and vilifications followed. The jealousies were even aggravated when, one by one, scholars and other virtuous and mature people left their paths and guides and hastened to join the disciples of the Imâm (Rabbânî) and to serve him. Conspiracies were resorted to for the purpose of exposing the Imâm to danger. For instance, they provoked the ignorant folk by spreading the lie that he abhorred the great Islamic shaikhs such as Junayd-i-Baghdâdî. They began to estrange the short-sighted people from the imâm by alleging that he denied the Wahdat-i-wujûd which was a science for spiritual improvement established by the great shaikhs of Islam. They tried to antagonize his admirers by asserting that he denied the Meshâikh-i-izâm and boasted of having attained the ma’rifat of Allâhu ta’âlâ directly without a guide. The defamations culminated when they finally tried to besmear him with the political felony of insubordination against the government and contempt for the laws and, into the bargain, many another libel which a Muslim could never commit against another.

26– His alleged denial of the Meshâikh-i-izâm was a blatant lie. The truth becomes manifest immediately upon beginning to read his book Maktûbât, which is a clear evidence of his profound respect towards the Meshâikh-i-izâm, so much so that he attaches beautiful meanings even to their words that are vulnerable to misinterpretation and which for centuries their enemies have exploited as fulcrums to bring their calumniations to bear, -as for their words that do not seem to be susceptible of a benevolent interpretation, he says that they were the erroneous words which those great people had said during their apprenticeship and which they corrected after attaining higher grades. He says that errors of kashf (in the paths of Tasawwuf), like errors of ijtihâd (committed by scholars who have attained the grade of ijtihâd), are not only pardonable but also meritorious acts that are likely to be rewarded (in the Hereafter). As regards his alleged denial of Wahdat-i-wujûd; those who read Maktûbât will know that the truth is quite the other way round and that he handles the matter with unprecedented adroitness by, on the one hand, protecting Islam’s honour and, on the other, paying heed to the dignity of those great people.

27– The statesmen under the time’s Sultân Selîm Jihânghir Khân, including his grand vizier, his chief muftî and his harem, were not Sunnî Muslims. However, most of the Imâm’s letters, and also his booklet Radd-i-rawâfid, especially, repudiate people without a Madhhab and explain that they are ignorant, stupid and base people. Imâm-i-Rabbânî sent that booklet of his to Abdullah Jenghiz Khân, the time’s greatest Uzbek Khân in Bukhârâ, with the note, “Show this booklet to the Iranian Shâh Abbâs Safawî! If he accepts it, things will be quite all right. If he does not, then it will be permissible to make war against him.” When the Shâh’s answer was in the negative, a war was made. Abdullah Khân took Herat (Hirât) and the cities in Khorasan. -Those places had been captured by the Safawîs a hundred years before. Upon this all the lâ-madhhabî[64] people in India cooperated, and their spokesmen showed the Sultân (Abdullah Khân) a letter which Imâm Rabbânî had written to his own master and teacher (Muhammad Bâqî Billah), i.e. the eleventh letter of the first volume, and said, “He considers himself, and claims to be, higher than all other people, even higher than Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.” The Sultân sent his own son Shâh Jihân to Imâm Rabbânî, inviting the Imâm and his sons and the other great scholars educated by the Imâm. He was resolved to have them all killed. Shâh Jihân went to Imâm, taking along a muftî with him. With them they had a fatwâ legalizing (Islamically) prostration before the Sultân (head of the Muslim state). (A fatwâ is a written answer which an Islamic scholar gives Muslims’ questions. A muftî is a scholar authorized to give a fatwâ). Shâh Jihân knew that Imâm Rabbânî was a true person. He said, “I can save you if you prostrate yourself before my father.” The Imâm replied that the legalization in the fatwâ stipulated darûrat (necessity, inevitability prescribed by Islam), that azîmat (the harder and more commendable choice) and ideal devotion to one’s faith would require refusal of a suggestion of prostration, and that nothing would save a person when the foreordained time of his death came. Leaving his sons and his ashâb (companions and disciples), he went alone. The Sultân showed him the eleventh letter and asked him what it meant. So beautiful and satisfactory was the great scholar’s answer that the Sultân, far below the level as he was to comprehend such sublime and esoteric facts, became cheered and released him apologetically. When the plotters saw that all their efforts had come to naught, they said to the Sultân, “This person has quite a number of men, and his words have caught on throughout the country. If we let him go, a chaos may follow. You see what a conceited person he is. He not only refused to show reverence, which in itself would suffice to prove his detestation, but also did not even condescend to salute you.” Indeed, the drunken, infuriated and ferocious appearance of the Sultân, as the imâm had found him upon entering his presence, had divested him of the respect and dignity that a personage in that position would normally have inspired, so that the great scholar had not even saluted him (by uttering the expression of salâm, which we have described earlier in the text). After a long debate with the assembly, the Sultân ordered that the imâm be imprisoned in the fortress of Gwalior, the most strongly fortified and the most dreadful fortress in the country. Like a nightingale caged in with lowly inmates, the Imâm’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ blessed face was shrouded from Muslims’ sight. The harvest moon was covered with black clouds. So gloomy was the hapless night that Sayyid Ghulâm Alî, India’s renowned man of belles lettres better known with his nickname Âzâd, could not help exquisitely versifying the event in his doleful stanzas.

28– Formerly, Imâm Rabbânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ sirrah-ul ’azîz’ had stated, “There are many other ranks that are above the ranks I have attained. Those higher ranks are attainable only by way of a training with Jelâl (Majesty, Wrath, Rage of Allâhu ta’âlâ, which materializes as disasters, misfortunes, cares). So far, I have been trained with Jemâl (Beauty, Grace of Allâhu ta’âlâ), i.e. with fondlings.” Also, he had said to some of his companions, “Between fifty and sixty, cares and disasters will shower on me.” It happened exactly as he had said, and he was blessed with those higher ranks as well.

29– Thousands of unbelievers imprisoned in the fortress were honoured with îmân and Islam owing to the barakat of the blessed Imâm ‘quddisa sirruh’. An approximately equal number of Muslims made tawba (for the sinful lives they had led before). In fact, some of them would later attain very high positions in Islamic scholarship. A striking example is the illustrious conversion to Islam of a great commander of the fire-worshipping Indians, who happened to be among the audience as the blessed scholar was explaining the eleventh letter to the Sultân and yielded to the merits of the Imâm’s religious steadfastness and the flavour and high standard of his wording. The Sultân’s vizier had appointed his own brother as a guard to wait upon the imâm with instructions that “the convict should undergo a harsh treatment.” Yet the fortunate brother, witnessing various karâmats (wonders and miracles) on the blessed imâm, and an awe-inspiring dignity, patience, and even exultation, instead of dejection, into the bargain, made tawba, doffed the halter of heresy, ornamented himself with the necklace of Ahl as-sunnat, and consigned himself into the pond of grace where bathed the truest disciples of the blessed religious scholar ‘quddisa sirruh’.

30– Not to the least extent did the imprisonment bear on the philanthropy that Imâm Rabbânî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ held towards the Sultân. Pleased with what he had done to him, he would always pronounce benedictions over him. As a matter of fact, some of the companions of the Imâm ‘quddisa sirruh’ had a design against the Sultân, which was very well within their power. Yet the Imâm prevented them, showing himself to them in their dreams as well as when they were awake, and advised them to pronounce benedictions over the Sultân. “Hurting the Sultân will cause harm to all the people,” he would say. Readers of Maktûbât will see these facts in all their clarity in the letters which he wrote to his sons from the dungeon.

31– Sultân Selîm Jihânghîr Khân’s son, Shâh Jihân ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, rose against his father. He had a powerful army and was sincerely backed by most of the commanders who were apparently on his father’s side. Yet the advantages he had proved short of bringing him victory. He told his story to one of the time’s Awliyâ and asked for benedictions. The Walî said: Your victory depends on the benedictions on the part of the four poles (highest Walîs and scholars) of the present time. Three of them are with you. Yet the fourth one, who is the highest one, does not approve of your attempt. That exalted person is Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî Mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî ‘quddisa sirruh’. Shâh Jihân went to the Imâm and begged the great scholar to invoke a blessing on him. The Imâm ‘quddisa sirruh’ counselled him to give up the plan to overthrow his father, saying, “Go to your father, kiss his hand and apologize! He will soon pass away and the sovereignty will be yours.” Shâh Jihân listened to his advice and gave up his plan. A short time later, in 1037 [1627 A.D.], his father passed away, whereupon he attained his wish, sovereignty. Then, how could one ever believe the jealous plotters’ slander that Imâm Rabbânî disobeyed the Sultân and flouted the laws?

32– Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ had spent two or three valuable years in the fortress, when the Sultân began to feel remorse for his wrongdoing. Having him taken out of the prison, he showed him kindness. In fact, he became one of his true disciples and faithful friends. He ordered him to stay for some time among the army. Later, he set him free and, with deep reverence, sent him to his homeland. When Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ was back home, he had attained grades and states thousands of times higher than the spiritual positions which he had been occupying (before imprisonment). With the exception of his blessed sons and his successors whom he educated, no one can be privy to the occult and secret spiritual facts and ma’rifats permeating through his letters which he wrote in the aftermath. Those valuable letters of his complement the three volumes of Maktûbât.

33– Such afflictions and disasters befell not only the greatest Awliyâ, but also prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’, so that today’s Awliyâ and devoted Muslims will find solace in them and the afflictions and disasters that the ignorant witness to befall the contemporary Awliyâ will not be construed as symptomatic of iniquity (of the people who suffer them). Historians, who are unaware of this subtlety, write only about the pleasant facts concerning the Awliyâ, withholding some events which reflect their human demeanours. This sparing policy misleads their uncritical readers into visualising them as impeccable and angelic creatures; and, ergo, a most trivial sight of human weakness which they observe on a person who is said to be a pious and devoted Muslim or a Walî causes them to think otherwise, which in turn means that they cannot get a share from the spiritual gifts the blessed person has been endowed with, since you cannot acquire any blessings from a person about whom you have a bad opinion. Some people go even further wrong by gossiping about those pure Muslims. They do not know that Allâhu ta’âlâ hides His beloved slaves under the screen of human mediocrities. As a matter of fact, He declares, “I hide My beloved ones. Not everybody can recognize them.” Imâm Rabbânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ sirrah-ul ’azîz’ offers a number of explanations on this subject in Maktûbât, while, on the other hand, Muhyiddîn Arabî ‘quddisa sirruh’ states in his book Futuhât that a peccadillo that breaks the heart and humbles the nafs is more useful than an act of worship which inflames the nafs and brings pride to the heart.

34– Having attained his loftiest aspirations, Imâm Rabbânî, Mujaddid-i-alf-i-thânî, Ahmad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’ reached the grades which Allâhu ta’âlâ bestowed on him, and thereafter, when the time which Allâhu ta’âlâ had foreordained, (i.e. the taqdîr-i-ilâhî,) came, he accepted the invitation extended by Azrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Angel of Death ) and attained the Refîq-i-a’lâ (Allâhu ta’âlâ) on the twenty-ninth day, Tuesday, of the blessed month of Safer (the second Arabic lunar month) in 1034 [1624 A.D.]. He was buried in the cemetery of Sihrind. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless his soul with peace and his grave with plenty of nûr! May He make us attain the barakat of his valuable breath and his love! May He guide us to his shafâ’at and join us with his lovers who will assemble under his banner on the Rising Day! Âmîn.

35– People have different habits, different predilections, different wishes, and different thoughts. Therefore, not only as he was alive did he have admirers as well as adversaries, but also after his passing away two different groups of people held two opposite opinions about him. Whereas one group explicitly praised him, another followed the line of criticism. The antagonistic attempts, however, let alone choke his universally renowned ma’rifats, merely betokened evanescent snowflakes on a river. Or, rather, they contributed to his reputation, for, every attempt on the part of his adversaries to scatter poison his admirers counterplotted against with a variety of antidotal confutations. This reciprocal struggle proved fructiferous enough to give birth to more than seventy books specially devoted to this subject. One of them, perhaps the greatest one, the booklet Atiyya-t-ul wahhâb fâsila-t-u-bayn-al-hatâ wa-th-thawâb, a masterpiece composed by Muhammad Uzbekî Makkî, put the adversaries to a crying shame from which they should not have had the face to raise their heads. After the imâm’s passing away ‘quddisa sirruh’, many scholars lauded him and wrote very useful and important books. One of them is Mawlânâ Abdullah Itâqîzâda ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ, the Muftî of Mekka-i-mukarrama, the Shaikh-ul-Islâm, and the Imâm-ul-’allâma. We have not translated the passage from his book which occupies a few pages of the Arabic version.

36– A profoundly learned scholar who praised Imâm Rabbânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ after his passing away is Ziyâeddîn Mawlânâ Khâlid ’Uthmânî Baghdâdî ‘quddisa sirruh’, a leader of ârifs, a guide to truth, a paragon of the highest attainable spiritual grades, an owner of physical and spiritual perfections, and an ocean of knowledge. The following paragraph is a paraphrased translation of the couplets in the ninety-fourth page of his Persian divan, in which he utters the delicacies of his lofty soul:

“Yâ Rabbî! Please do forgive me for the sake of the haloes in the eyes of Ahmad Fârûqî ‘quddisa sirruh’; a wayfarer of that endless path; a leader of the owners of knowledge; a source of the occult secrets which are neither perceptible to the human sight nor attainable with mind; an owner of greatness beyond the human cognizance and which Thou, alone, knowest; an ocean where meanings foam and crest like waves; a chief of a world where material beings or places do not exist; a source of nûr whose lights illuminate India; a beloved slave for whose sake the city of Sihrind was transmuted into the valley where Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’ received the Word of Allâhu ta’âlâ; a document to prove the greatness of the religion of Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’; a light for the assembly of the keen-sighted; a commander of the army of absolute piety; a master who not only has attained unthinkable spiritual heights but also guides those who follow his path! Please do overlook my black face! So ruthlessly have I abused myself, innumerable are the faults I have committed, and so disloyal have I been in my promise. Yet the endlessness of Thine ocean of forgiveness and compassion makes me feel hopeful. Thine infinite Kindness, alone, do I rely on. For, ‘I am the Forgiver,’ Thou sayest.”

37– Another scholar who praised him was Hadrat Sayyid Tâhâ Hakkârî ‘quddisa sirruh’, a profoundly learned savant, a virtuous Walî-i-kâmil, a possessor of innumerable karâmats (wonders, miracles), and the highest of the Awliyâ educated and trained by Mawlânâ Khâlid Baghdâdî ‘quddisa sirruh’.

38– Another scholar who praised Imâm Rabbânî ‘quddisa sirruh’ was Sayyid Abdulhakîm Efendi ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, a gem of scholarship and an ideal perfection among the Awliyâ. He states as follows in a letter that he wrote to a devoted Muslim: “Dhikr, and so the effect of dhikr, is a deep sea. No one has reached down its depths. It is a such rough ocean that the entire world is quite unaware of any one of its waves. It is such a vast mass of water surrounding the world that the entire universe would not be able to comprehend it. Dhikr is a spiritual state that occurs in the hearts of those who make dhikr. It is something impossible to describe, to write about, to explain.

“A person who knows Allâhu ta’âlâ becomes speechless. He cannot find words to describe what he is experiencing. He becomes overwhelmed with bewilderment. He is quite oblivious to the world and to other people. As Allâhu ta’âlâ is the Person whose dhikr is being made, likewise, He, alone, is the Person who makes dhikr. He, alone, is capable of making dhikr of Himself. Who are poor creatures to make dhikr of Him? However, He commands His human creature to make dhikr of Him in order to tinge his own attributes with the (Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ termed) Sifât-i-ilâhiyya. Every person (who makes dhikr) finds an amount of consolation proportional to his abilities in that endless and wavy sea. Ways-al-Qarânî contented himself with a drop from that ocean. Junayd Baghdâdî was satisfied with a handful from that sea. Abdulqâdir-i-Geylânî only reached the shore of the sea. Muhyiddîn-i-Arabî took pride in a jewel taken out from the bottom of the sea. And Imâm Rabbânî acquired a great share from it ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ.

“The letters alif, lâm and he (pronounced as he according to the International Phonetic Alphabet), which serve in the formation of the word ‘Allah’, i.e. the very great word representing a Person, -who is not comparable to any other being,- are means and vehicles that lead to the tenor. Dhikr is not, in itself, to pronounce these letters. Dhikr is the spiritual state produced through the word, ‘Allah’. The word is called dhikr out of necessity to symbolize, and not in the actual sense.

“For the same matter, the expression (termed) Kalima-i-tawhîd is not dhikr, either. Yet, with respect to its being pronounced and its meaning, it serves as a means for dhikr, which, in reality, is a state of heart and spirit which comes into being from saying it repeatedly with the heart. Attainment of that spiritual state depends on the expression.”

The above-cited translation of the passage from the letter, which is considerably much longer, is an elaborate, eloquent, concise, and at the same time detailed and thorough praise and laudation of Imâm Rabbânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ sirrah-ul ’azîz’.

Sayyid Abdulhakîm Efendi ‘quddisa sirruh’ would frequently say, “Ba’da kitâbillah wa ba’da kitâb-i-Rasûlillah, afdal-i-kutub Maktûbât-est,” during his lectures, and the same statement is written in several of his letters. This statement translates into English as follows: “After the Qur’ân al-kerîm, which is the Book of Allâhu ta’âlâ, (and which therefore is the highest and best of all books,) and after the book Bukhârî, which is a compilation of the hadîth-i-sherîfs, i.e. the utterances of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, (and which naturally, is the second highest and best book,) the third highest and best book written in the Islamic religion is the book Maktûbât, (which is a compilation of the letters written by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî).” [Whereas Mathnawî (Mesnevî), written by Jalâladdîn-i-Rûmî (Celâleddîn-i-Rûmî), is the most valuable book telling about the ma’rifats and the perfections in the grades of Wilâyat attained by the Awliyâ-i-kirâm, Maktûbât, written by Imâm Rabbânî Ahmad Fârûqî, is the most valuable and the highest of the books explaining both the perfections and the ma’rifats in the grades of Wilâyat and the ma’rifats and the kamâlât (perfections) and the subtleties peculiar to the grade of prophethood.]

An excerpt from one of his letters translates into English as follows: “... who has read and partly understood the book Maktûbât, which is the most useful book from worldly as well as religious points of view and whose compeer in the Islamic religion has not so far been written... .” He, (i.e. Abdulhakîm Efendi,) would say, “A person who knows a little Persian (Fârisî) language will understand Maktûbât better if he reads the Persian version. For the Turkish version rendered by Müstekimzâde Süleymân Efendi is both complicated and erroneous.” Müstekîmzâde Süleymân Efendi, a disciple of Muhammed Emîn Tokâdî, passed away in 1202 [1788 A.D.]. His grave is adjacent to that of his master at Zeyrek, Istanbul. The book Maktûbât was printed various times at various places. A splendid edition was made in Karachi, Pakistan, in 1392 [1972 A.D.]. It consists of two volumes. The first volume contains the first part, and the second and third parts are incorporated in the second volume. The two volumes were reproduced in pulchritudinous copies in Istanbul by offset process for which best quality paper was used. A Persian abridgement of Maktûbât was rendered in 1080 [1668 A.D.] by Muhammad Bâqir Lahôrî, an eminent one among the hundreds of Awliyâ educated and trained by Muhammad Ma’thûm Serhendî, one of the blessed sons of Imâm Rabbânî. The abridged version, entitled Kanz-ul-hidâyât by the author himself, is of a hundred and twenty pages and contains twenty hidâyats (subtitles). It was printed in Lâhôr in 1376 [1957 A.D.] The same blessed Walî wrote another book, entitled Urwa-t-ul-wusqâ, in the Fârisî language.

Inheriting from Rasûlullah, he was mujaddid alf thânî;
A mujtahid in all sciences, he was in Tasawwuf Ways al-Qarânî.

He spread Islam worldover, illuminated every Believer;
Awaken the unaware did the most exalted Imâm, Rabbânî.

All tenets in Islam he knew well, the Sharî’at he obeyed well;
Rank with unbelief as the entire world was, like Abû Bakr was he.

All received fayz from his sohbat, commanders and governors alike,
He descended from ’Umar Fârûq, true people give testimony.

This book, SAHÂBA ‘the Blessed’, was written by the great Islamic scholar Ahmad Fârûq-i-Serhendî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, and revised by Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakîm Arwâsî.

Immured within the smothering haze of complacency pampered by a smattering of science somehow acquired in the name of knowledge, we were bluntly unconscious of the existence of great Islamic scholars and their gigantic works, and especially of the so many highly exalted savants and Walîs who were compared to the Israelite prophets ‘salawâtullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’, and all we possessed in the name of religious knowledge was a precariously diminutive assortment which consisted of whatever we had heard from our parents and which was being gnawed away piecemeal by the storms blowing around us; and the pitiable situation would have become no better, if not worse for the sake of most unflagging optimism, had it not been for Sayyid Abdulhakîm Efendî ‘quddisa sirruh’; a great genius, a gift that Allâhu ta’âlâ bestowed upon the Turkish nation and who made us hear about the names of innumerable Islamic books each and every one of which is a treasure of values and virtues and a key to the eternal felicity, and who caused us to attain the fortune of reading and understanding their contents which have a curing effect on psychopaths; a savior of the innocent and credulous people who had been fooled into lethal heresies and perdition by the sequinned fallacies of unbelievers and renegades; a learned psychotherapist who forearmed the younger generations with panacea by making people suffering from mental perplexities taste the existence of Allâhu ta’âlâ, the superiority of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and the inner nature of îmân and Islam; the refreshing morning breeze that swept away the clouds of unbelief and apostasy which had been blackening the hearts and obscuring the sacred path of our noble ancestors; a sun of knowledge and ma’rifat that cleared the horizons of the gloom of irreligiousness that had thoroughly enveloped the sources of îmân; a noble descendant of the Best of Mankind ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and a profoundly learned Walî possessed of an expertise in all the subtle particulars of the four Madhhabs and in the sublime facts about the (spiritual grades attained through various paths and called) Wilâyat. It has therefore been seen fit to present a brief biography of that virtuous worldly and next-worldly guide and thereby to leave a keepsake for those happy people who have had the fluke of reading his books.

Sayyid Abdulhakîm bin Mustafâ Arwâsî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ asrârahumâ’, one of the greatest scholars in the (chain of scholars called) Sôfiyya-i-aliyya and a model of excellence among those scholars who faultlessly practised their religious knowledge, was a personified treasure of faculties well above his colleagues and contemporaries in the accomplishment of Islamic services such as terwîj-i-dîn and nashr-i-’ilm and seha-i-tâbi’ and in the enactment and practice of the shar’i sherîf-i-Ahmadî ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.

He was born in Başkal’a (Bashqal’a), a town within the limits of Van, (an Eastern Turkey) province, in 1281 [1865 A.D.]. He received an ijâzat [a diploma] in the earlier half of the hijrî year 1300. Not only did he receive an authorization from the Allâma Sayyid Fehîm ‘quddisa sirruh’ in sciences such as ’ilm-i-sarf and nahw (the Arabic grammar); mantiq (logic); munâzara (argumentation); wadi’, (which means, literally, posture, attitude, legislation); bayân (expression, discourse); ma’ânî (lexicology, semantics); bedî’ (rhetoric); kalâm (speech, branch of science helpful in understanding the Qur’ân al-kerîm); usûl-i-fiqh (methodology employed in fiqh); tafsîr (explanation of the Qur’ân al-kerîm); tasawwuf; nush-i-li-l-muslimîn; iftâ-’alal madhhabîn; ’ulûm-i-hikamiyya, or hikmat-i-tabî’iyya, [which covers sciences such as physics and biology]; hikmat-i-ilâhiyya; riyâdiyya (mathematics); hay’at [astronomy]; and ’ulûm-i-zâhiriyya. The same profoundly learned scholar taught and gave him full authorization in the orders of Tasawwuf such as Mujaddidî; Qâdirî; Kubrawî; Suhrawardî; and Cheshtî. His father was Sayyid Muhyiddîn, whose father was Sayyid Muhammad, whose father was Sayyid Abdurrahmân, who was at the same time Sayyid Fehîm’s father’s father ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în’. That his paternal chain traces back to Alî Ridâ bin Kâzim, one of the twelve imâms ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ, is written in the registers of canonical lawcourt in Iraq, which is a document bearing the blessed signature of Sayyid Abdurrazzâq ‘quddisa sirruh’, a grandson of Sayyid Abdulqâdir Geylânî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’.

Surviving the oppressions and massacres perpetrated by the Armenians, who were emboldened when the Russian army reached a spot only an hour’s march from Başkal’a on the first day of the blessed month of Rajab, 1332 [1914 A.D.], Sayyid Abdulhakîm Arwâsî and seventy of his kith and kin, women, children and all, set out on a middle-eastern migratory odyssey which carried them via a number of Iraqi and Anatolian towns and cities such as Ruwandiz, Erbil, Mosul, Adana and Eskişehir, and which eventually ended in the township of Eyyûb Sultân, Istanbul, in the early Shawwâl of 1337 [1919 A.D.]. First they were accomodated in the Yazılı Madrasa, a school building in the market-place. Then he was appointed as imâm in the mosque called Murtadâ Efendi, which was in the vicinity of Idris Köşk at Gümüşsuyu. He had made hajj twice before the migration. He has a number of letters in the form of pamphlets. Among them are such extremely valuable masterpieces as his work telling about the commencement of religious practices such as Mawlîd and the using of the (prayer beads termed) Tesbîh and their canonical lawfulness; his booklet entitled Râbita-i-sherîfa; his book entitled er-Riyâd-ut-tasawwufiyya, which he wrote during his career as a mudarris [professor] of Tasawwuf in the Islamic university called Madrasa-i-mutahassisîn during the reign of Sultân Wahîdaddîn Khân; his books Sahâba-i-kirâm (Sahâba ‘the Blessed’) and Ajdâd-i-Peygamberî; and his work on the Islamic jurisprudence; in addition to his poems in Arabic, Persian and Turkish. He neither ventured into politics, nor involved himself in any political complications. He was against all factions, especially those which were being carried on in the disguise of mystic orders. He was never heard to mention words such as ‘shaikh’ and ‘murîd’ after the enactment of the law banning tekkes. Not only was he himself an ideal model in strict law-abidingness, but also he would always advise his company to follow his example. However, his sermons on the pulpits of various mosques of Istanbul such as Eyyûb Sultân, Fâtih, Bâyezîd, Bakırköy, Kadıköy and Ağa, Beyoğlu, wherein he reiterated his disapproval of a group of impostors who were exploiting the Islamic values for their worldly advantages, incurred the ire of the iniquitous rogues, who had recourse to calumniation in counteraction. So vigorous was the smear campaign they waged against him, that eventually he was arrested in his home in Istanbul on the eighteenth of Ramadân, 1362, which coincided with the eighteenth of September, 1943, a Saturday, and transported to Izmir, where he was first lodged in a hotel, Meserret, and then moved to a private house. After an almost three months’ sojourn there, he left for Ankara on the tenth day of Zilqa’da, Monday, and, arriving in the city on Tuesday, he went to his nephew Fârûk Işık’s place, where he stayed bedridden for eighteen days. It was eighteen minutes before sunset, twelve according to the adhânî time and six-thirty by the zawâlî time, on the twenty-ninth of Zilqa’da, 1362, which was the twenty-seventh of Teshrîn thânî [November], Saturday, 1943, when he attained his eternal palace in the Hereafter. A light earthquake was recorded during the night. That day his blessed corpse was taken to his son-in-law Ibrâhîm’s house at Keçiören, where he was washed and shrouded, the (prayer termed) janâza salât was performed, and the blessed corpse, (which had served one of the darlings of Allâhu ta’âlâ for eighty-one years,) was interred at Bağlum, a township twenty-four kilometres north of Ankara, at sunset. Husayn Hilmi Işık was the lucky person who was honoured to join the janâza salât for him, to enter his blessed grave, and to undertake the duty of talqîn. (Please see the thirteenth through nineteenth chapters of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss for information about death and terms, duties and services connected with death.) His grave is on the north-eastern part of the cemetery, which in turn occupies a gentle slope some fifty metres west of the township. Beside the entrance to the mosque of Bağlum is the blessed grave of Hadrat Sayyid Burhânaddîn Mûshî. May Allâhu ta’âlâ make his rank even higher! May He make us attain his shafâ’at! May He bless us with reading his books, following the path he guides, and always reaping spiritual fruits from his blessed soul! Âmîn.

Let each Muslim weep and shed tears of blood,
For Sayyid Abdulhakîm has left the world!
Âlim-ul-âmil and Walî-i-kâmil he was,
And a wealth of sublime, occult secrets.

All were suddenly orphaned, so destitute
Are now, both Islam and truth, no doubt.
My eyes reject what they themselves see;
Has that noble received the Divine Command ‘Be’?

The earth danced with joy throughout the night,
And embraced him the next day, with delight.
Alas, our blessed Sun has declined;
Unique is the time that his being defined!

He was, in his latest days, so grief-stricken,
Afflicted with pains’n sorrows, a sign for the woe-be-gone;
By the Islamic world it must be seriously taken:
Apathy whose issue with bloody tears cannot be undone!

In the name of eternity that has embraced his soul,
I have summarized a life that’d make a history.
A croud without him is a carcass without a soul;
Islam bemoans, and heavens weep over this story!

Allâhu ta’âlâ has pity on all the people on the earth. He sends useful things to everybody. He shows them the ways to protect themselves against harms and to attain happiness and salvation. In the Hereafter, He will be magnanimously kind, forgiving those whom He chooses of the Muslims who are to go to Hell on account of the sins they have committed in the world. He, alone, creates every living being, keeps every being in existence, and protects all against fears and horrors. In the name of such an omnipotent being, Allah, we begin to write this pamphlet.

We offer our hamd (praise and gratitude) to Allâhu ta’âlâ. If a person thanks any other person at any place, at any time, in any way and for any reason, the thanks paid, in its entirety, belongs to Allâhu ta’âlâ by rights. For, He is the sole creater of all, the single educator and trainer, and the one and only maker and sender of everything in the name of goodness. He, alone, is the owner of power and authority. No one can think of doing something good or bad, or have the will or desire to do so, unless He creates the idea. The choice that a slave exercises between doing good or bad to another is a mere nullity unless He, too, wills it and gives the power and the chance to do so. When some of His slaves whom He likes wish to do something bad, He does not will it and does not create the malevolent action. Therefore, only benevolent deeds proceed from such slaves. On the other hand, when His enemies, who have already somehow incurred His Wrath, will and desire to do evils, He, too, wills and creates those evils. Such iniquitous slaves have enslaved themselves to their nafs, and they never wish to do something good. Therefore, malevolence is the only product that comes out of them.

We present our salât and salâm (benedictions and salutations) on Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’, the most beloved Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ. We invoke blessings on his Ahl-i-Bayt and on each and every one of his Sahâba ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’.

Allâhu ta’âlâ commands Muslims to cling to the Qur’ân al-kerîm and to unite around the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Ashâb-i-kirâm, who were perfectly obedient to all the commandments, united together, loved one another and became brothers. Allâhu ta’âlâ praises them for this brotherly love among them in the Fath-h sûra. Unity engenders power. Disunity causes ruination. Let us be like the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Let us adopt their high moral values. Let us love one another. Let us unite in the path guided by the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Let us not believe the lies fibbed by those separatists who have deviated from that true path. Let us do good to everybody. Let us be soft-spoken and gently smiling with everybody and try to promulgate Islam’s honour worldover. Obedience to the government and to the laws is incumbent upon every Muslim. It is a grave sin to cause fitna or chaos. Differences of Madhhab should not be grounds for fighting. Some foreign bureaus are publishing books in all languages for the purpose of sowing discord among us. Defiling the hadîth-i-sherîfs, misinterpreting the âyat-i-kerîmas, and concocting sad stories, they are deceiving the young people.

In order to expose the plots for undermining Islam from within and to refute the slanders and lies that the plotters have fabricated, the Islamic scholars have written thousands of books for a thousand years, thereby protecting the Muslims from falling victim to the guided extinction stalking them. One of those useful books is Qurrat-ul-aynayn, written in Fârisî by Shâh Waliyyullah Ahmad Sâhib ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’, a great scholar of India. Hadrat Shâh Waliyyullah was born in Delhi in 1114 [1702 A.D.], and passed away there in 1176 [1762 A.D.].

All the arguments in the book owe considerable corroboration to the long and detailed documentary proofs written in the book Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ’ashariyya. In the seventh chapter, for instance, after confuting the wrong meanings which some people attributed to five âyat-i-kerîmas and twelve hadîth-i-sherîfs in their futile efforts to prove that Hadrat Alî should have been the first Khalîfa, it says, “According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, the second most valuable book after the Qur’ân al-kerîm is Bukhârî-i-sherîf, which contains the hadîth-i-sherîfs of our Prophet. According to some people, Nahj-ul-balâgha is the second most valuable book after the Qur’ân al-kerîm. That book contains the khutbas of Hadrat Alî written by a person named Radî. As he wrote the khutbas, he excised Hadrat Alî’s statements which lavished praise on the Shaikhayn (Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar), in addition to other additions and changes. So badly changed and defiled were the khutbas of Hadrat Alî that the Shiite scholars who revised Nahj-ul-balâgha were unable to elicit any clear meanings from most of the book and had to copy the ambiguous parts exactly as they were.” The book Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ’ashariyya is in the Fârisî language. It was translated into Arabic. The Arabic version was abridged by Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsî, who entitled the abridged version Muhtasar-i-Tuhfa. Hadrat Sayyid Abdullah Dahlawî, a great Walî renowned for his high grade in the zâhirî knowledge as well as in the knowledge of Tasawwuf, states in the sixty-first letter of his Fârisî book Maktûbât that the khutbas in the book Nahj-ul-balâgha are not sahîh. Some people have been reproducing the schismatic book under the title Istinâd-i-Nahj-ul-balâgha and sending the subversive copies to countries worldover. Muhammad bin Husayn Mûsawî Radî was the brother of the lâ-madhhabî heretic named Alî bin Husayn Murtadâ, who attacks the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat with a coarsely abusive and foul language in his book Husniyya. Both of them were Persian sayyids. They passed away in Baghdâd, Muhammad Radî in 406 [1016 A.D.], and Murtadâ in 436 [1044 A.D.]. The author of the book Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ’ashariyya, namely Hâfid Ghulâm Halîm Abdul’azîz bin Qutbuddîn Shâh Waliyyullah Ahmad Sâhib Dahlawî, passed away in 1239 [1824 A.D.].

Every Muslim has to learn, and also teach others, a book of ’Ilm-i-hâl written by (one of) the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat. Each of us has a nafs-i-ammâra which is an unbeliever. (The nafs-i-ammâra inherent in the human nature is such a stupid being that) it wishes us to lose our îmân or, at least, to deviate from the right path. It tries to drag us into reading the seditious and harmful books and magazines written by irreligious and heretical people and watching and listening to the radio and television programmes broadcast by foreign organizations. It relishes doing whatsoever Islam prohibits (harâm), believing the lies fibbed by heretics, and observing the customs and fashions of disbelievers. Worship is one of its pet aversions. It is for this reason that disbelief and heresies catch on so easily and spread so readily everywhere. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in a hadîth-i-qudsî, “Know your nafs as My enemy. Your nafses are My enemies.” It is a great act of jihâd not to do the desires of the nafs. It brings much thawâb.

The one and only medicine requisite for immunity against the traps set by our own nafs-i-ammâra and baited by heretical, lâ-madhhabî and irreligious people, is to read the books of ’Ilm-i-hâl, which have been written by the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat and which are the only true sources for learning the Islamic tenets pertaining to belief (îmân) and practices of worship. Muslims should be sure to send their children to teachers of Qur’ân al-kerîm so that they will learn how to read the Qur’ân al-kerîm, how to perform namâz, and the tenets of îmân and Islam, before they begin their elementary education. This is one of the crucial points where the nafs-i-ammâra will set its traps by raising various doubts. For instance, it will delude you into thinking, “A child should first learn how to make a living. Learning other things might as well wait.” Parents who look ahead to their children’s being good Muslims in future should first, themselves, weather the deceits and lies of their own nafs and of the human devils, by sending their children to teachers of Qur’ân al-kerîm. It will be very difficult, and even impossible in some cases, to do so after schooling begins. Cane is pliable when wet. Once past its prime, it will break rather than bend, which in turn will cause harm. A child who is not equipped with a religious background will become a heretic, if not a disbeliever. Parents’ mourning over it afterwards will not save them or their children from Hell. Our beloved Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ warns about this utterly bitter fact as follows: “Helek-al-musawwifûn!” Its meaning is as follows: “Do your good deeds immediately. Do not procrastinate until the following day.” The primary good deed, which is of foremost importance, is to teach Islam to your children. Each Muslim has to do this primary duty instantly and not delay or postpone it even for a day.

No one has possessed worldly property forever, be it gold’n silver;
Repair a broken heart for an art, and it will remain forever.
Ephemeral is the world called, it only and always turns over and over;
Man is a lantern, which will one day eventually go out for ever!

The following treatise is a translation from Qurrat-ul-’aynayn fî-tafdîl-ish-shaikhayn, a book written in the Fârisî language by the great Islamic scholar Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’. The book, of two hundred and seventy pages, was printed in Peshâwar in 1310 [1892 A.D.].

The book Qurrat-ul-’aynayn consists of an introduction and two chapters. The introduction enlarges on the superiorities of the Shaikhayn (Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar) and presents an argument based on authentic reports and reasoning. The first chapter answers the writings in the book Tajrîd by Nasîraddîn Tûsî, a Shiite scholar. Muhammad Nasîraddîn Tûsî was born in the city of Tus in 597 [1201 A.D.], and passed away in Baghdâd in 676 [1274 A.D.]. The second chapter confutes the slanders and lies whereby some malicious and heretical people try to traduce the Shaikhayn.

The Shaikhayn, i.e. Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’, are the highest ones of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Concomitant to a recent increase in the number of holders of bid’at, i.e. heretics, doubts have been being voiced concerning their superiority. So dreadful is the decaying trend that the correct tenets of belief taught by the Salaf as-sâlihîn (the early Islamic scholars) are being forgotten gradually. Indeed, it is an open fact based both on narrations and on logic that the Shaikhayn are the highest. Narrations come to us through three different courses. Allâhu ta’âlâ promised to His beloved Prophet in the fifty-fifth âyat of Nûr sûra that He would give him believing and pious Khalîfas and reinforce the Islamic religion through those Khalîfas. This fact is confirmed by the dreams which the Messenger of Allah had as well as by the dreams that the Ashâb-i-kirâm had and which the Messenger of Allah explained. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated several times both directly and indirectly that the Shaikhayn would succeed him as his Khalîfas after him. His statements, which are documentary sources, have been conveyed to us through (an authentic chain of narrations and reports termed) tawâtur. Then, the Shaikhayn are the highest Muslims. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Tirmuzî and Hâkim: “After me, follow Abû Bakr and ’Umar!” This hadîth-i-sherîf was reported by Huzayfa and ibn Mas’ûd. Hâkim’s book quotes Enes bin Mâlik as having related: The tribe of Benî Mustalâq sent me to the Messenger of Allah to ask him to name the person to whom we were to pay our zakâts after him. When I came to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and asked him, he said, “Give them to Abû Bakr!” They sent me again. When I reported their question who would be the person to receive our zakâts after Abû Bakr, he said, “’Umar!” I came to him once again with the message asking for the name of the person to take our zakâts. The Prophet’s answer was: “(You will be giving them to) ’Uthmân!” As the Messenger of Allah had to repair to bed during his last fatal illness, he appointed Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ as the imâm (to conduct the public prayers called salât, [or namâz,] in jamâ’at). He explicitly rejected the question if someone else could be the imâm. This was the event from which the notables of the Sahâba such as Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat Alî inferred that Abû Bakr was to be (the first) Khalîfa. None of the Sahâba was opposed to their inference. According to a narration in Bukhârî, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq was conducting the morning prayer in jamâ’at with the command of Rasûlullah, when the blessed Messenger slightly raised the curtain hanging in the doorway and, seeing his Sahâba performing the namâz, he gave a happy smile. Thinking that the Messenger of Allah intended to come in and conduct the namâz, Abû Bakr as-Siddîq moved aside, which made the Sahâba rejoice with the same expectation. Motioning with his blessed hand, the most beautiful human being commanded, “Complete your namâz!” Then he let the curtain go down. He passed away that day. According to a narration unanimously reported by the scholars of Hadîth, one day a woman asked Rasûlullah a question. “Come back later and ask (the same question),” was the blessed Prophet’s reply. The woman asked again, “O Messenger of Allah! What do I do if I can’t find you here?” Rasûlullah stated, “If you can’t find me when you come here, ask Abû Bakr!”

Question: Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ said that the Messenger of Allah had not stated who would be Khalîfa after him? What would you say about that?

Answer: The two imâms, (i.e. Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat Alî,) said that the Messenger of Allah had not convened his Sahâba to tell them to pay homage to Abû Bakr after him. For, according to both of them, the Prophet’s having commanded Abû Bakr to conduct the namâz in jamâ’at was an implication that he would be Khalîfa. Abû Wâîl reasons as follows: When Hadrat Alî lay down with the fatal wound he was asked whom he was going to appoint Khalîfa after him. “If Allâhu ta’âlâ foreordained goodness for you, you will elect the best of you as your president,” replied the blessed imâm. This statement of Hadrat Alî’s shows that Hadrat Abû Bakr was the highest. A hadîth-i-sherîf which is quoted on the authority of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ in Hâkim’s book reads as follows: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ lavish His Compassion on Abû Bakr! He gave me his daughter. He took me to Medîna in the Hijrat.” Nizâl bin Sabra ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: One day I saw Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ cheerful and asked him who were the people that he had chosen for friends. “All the Sahâba of the Messenger of Allah are my friends,” he replied. And when I asked him what he would say about Abû Bakr, he said, “He is such a person whom Allâhu ta’âlâ has honoured with the name ‘Siddîq’ through (His Archangel) Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ and through His Prophet Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’.” Sa’îd bin Musayyab ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ relates: “Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was Rasûlullah’s vizier. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ always consulted with him before doing something. In Islam he was the second (highest) person after the Messenger of Allah. In the cave he was the second person after the Messenger of Allah. During the Holy War of Badr, he was the second person after the Messenger of Allah under the wooden sunshade. He was the second person to be put in a grave, i.e. next after the Messenger of Allah. Rasûlullah would never put anyone before him.” In a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Abdurrahmân bin Ghanam, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ said to Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar: “I shall never disagree with anything on which you two agree.”

Allâhu ta’âlâ reinforced the Islamic religion with Hadrat ’Umar. It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Tirmuzî and Abû Dâwûd and Hâkim: “Allâhu ta’âlâ has placed the haqq (truth, right) into ’Umar’s tongue and heart.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Bukhârî and Muslim: “The Satan will run away from ’Umar’s shadow?” Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ states in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Bukhârî and Muslim: “During Mi’râj[65] I saw the palace that will be given to ’Umar.” Allâhu ta’âlâ sent down âyat-i-kerîmas confirming Hadrat ’Umar’s words concerning the Maqâm-i-Ibrâhîm and women’s covering themselves and the captives taken during the Holy War of Badr. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Hâkim: “On the Rising Day, Allâhu ta’âlâ will greet ’Umar first.” In a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Abû Sa’îd-i-Hudrî, the Prophet pointed to ’Umar and stated: “Of my Ummat, this person will occupy the highest grade in Paradise?” When Hadrat ’Umar asked Rasûlullah for permission to make ’Umra,[66] the blessed Prophet gave him permission and said, “O my brother, do not forget about us as you say your prayers!” Rasûlullah states in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Abdullah ibn Abbâs: “On the day when ’Umar embraced Islam Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ came to me and angels gave one another the glad tidings that ’Umar had become a Muslim.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Tirmuzî and reported by Aqaba bin Âmir: “If another prophet were to come after me ’Umar bin Khattâb would be a prophet.” In another hadîth-i-sherîf written in Tirmuzî on the authority of Imâm Zaynal ’Âbidîn, who quotes it from his grandfather Hadrat Alî on the authority of his father Hadrat Husayn: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and I were sitting together, when Abû Bakr and ’Umar came over. The Best of Mankind said, “These two are the highest inhabitants of Paradise after prophets.” Enes bin Mâlik is quoted, in ibn Mâja, as having related: One day he was asked, “Whom do you love most, O Messenger of Allah?” “Âisha,” he replied. “And who is the man you love most?” “Âisha’s father.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Tirmuzî and reported by Huzayfa and Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd: “After me pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar!” Tirmuzî quotes Enes bin Mâlik as having related: As the Sahâba were seated together, Rasûlullah would just come and sit among them, stopping them from standing up. No one, with the exception of Abû Bakr and ’Umar, could look at him in the face. The two closest companions of the Prophet would look at him, and he at them, three of them smiling at one another. In a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Hâkim’s book and reported by Huzayfa Yemânî, Rasûlullah states: “I want to send my Sahâba to all countries so that my sunnats and the (tenets called) farz be taught far and near. Likewise, Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (Jesus) sent out his Hawârîs.” When he was asked if he would send Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar as well, he replied, “These two I will not part from. They are like my ears and eyes.” In a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Tirmuzî and in Hâkim: One day Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ entered the mosque, with Abû Bakr on his right and ’Umar on his left. He was holding their hands. “On the Rising Day, we shall rise from our graves together, like this.” Abî Arwâ relates in a hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Hâkim: We were sitting with Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, when Abû Bakr and ’Umar came over. “May gratitude and praise be to Allâhu ta’âlâ because He gave us strength with these two.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Tirmuzî and in ibn Mâja and reported by Abû Sa’îd Hudrî: “Those who will occupy high positions in Paradise will be seen like stars when looked from below. Abû Bakr and ’Umar will be (two) of them.”

According to a narration reported unanimously by scholars of Hadîth, Abû Mûsa-l-ash ’arî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ relates: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and I were sitting in a garden, when someone knocked on the door. The Messenger of Allah ordered, “Open the door and give the newcomer the glad tidings that he will go to Paradise (after death)!” I opened the door. Abû Bakr came in. I told him Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ glad tidings. There was another knock on the door. “Open the door and give the newcomer the glad tidings that he will go to Paradise,” ordered the blessed Prophet again. I opened the door and ’Umar came in. I gave him the glad tidings. Another knock came from the door. The Best of Mankind ordered, “Open the door! Give the newcomer the glad tidings that he will go to Paradise, and tell him that disasters will befall him!” ’Uthmân came in when I opened the door. I told him about the glad tidings and about the qadar (fate, destiny) which Allâhu ta’âlâ foreordained for him. “May hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, who is the only asylum to seek against accidents and disasters,” was his reaction.

It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf written in Hâkim and in the (book of hadîths entitled) Musnad by Imâm Ahmad, and which is reported by Hadrat Alî: “When Abû Bakr comes to power and presides over you, you will find him zâhid in the world and râghib in the Hereafter. When ’Umar presides over you, you will find him powerful, trustworthy, and undaunted in the way of Allah. When Alî gains the presidency over you, you will find him hâdi and muhdî. He will guide you to the right path.”

Sa’îd bin Zayd ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ quoted the following hadîth-i-sherîf, which is written in Tirmuzî and in ibn Mâja: “Ten people are in Paradise, (that is, that they will go to Paradise is certain by now). (They are:) Abû Bakr and ’Umar and ’Uthmân and Talha and Zubayr and Abdurrahmân bin ’Awf and Alî bin Abî Tâlib and Sa’d bin Abî Waqqâs and Abû ’Ubayda bin Jerrâh.” Naming nine of the blessed Sahâbîs, Sa’îd bin Zayd kept back the tenth name. When they asked who he was, he said, “Abu-l-A’war,” implying himself.

Irbât bin Sâriya narrates the following event, which is written in ibn Mâja and in Tirmuzî: We, the Sahâba, had assembled (on an occasion). Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ. Obey your Amîr, who will be presiding over you, even if he is an Abyssinian slave! After me, there will happen differences among Muslims. During those disturbances hold fast to my Sunnat and to the sunnats of the Khulafâ-ar-Râshidîn. My Khalîfas will show you the right path. Follow the path that they will show you! Avoid the later inventions! All bid’ats are aberration and heresy.” Hadrat Safîna, who served the Messenger of Allah for years, relates: I heard Rasûlullah say, “After me, my Khalîfas will make my path live on for thirty years. Thereafter meliks (emperors, sultans) will preside over my Ummat.” The caliphate of Abû Bakr lasted for two years; that of ’Umar lasted for ten years; ’Uthmân’s tenure of office lasted for twelve years; and Alî held office for six years ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.

There is many another similar hadîth-i-sherîf citing the superiorities of Abû Bakr and ’Umar ’radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ and stating that they are people of Paradise. Also, hundreds of other hadîth-i-sherîfs, which state the superiorities of the Ashâb-i-kirâm, of the Muhâjirîn, and of those blessed people who were present at a number of vitally important events such as Badr, Uhud, Bî’at-ur-ridwân and other Holy Wars, are, at the same time, laudatory of the two Khalîfas.

That Abû Bakr is the highest member of this Ummat (Muslims) and that ’Umar is the second highest are two firsthand facts on which the Ashâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în-i-izâm were unanimous. When Hadrat Abû Bakr was elected Khalîfa, none of the Ashâb-i-kirâm said a single word to renounce his authority. Nor were any protests voiced on the part of the Ashâb-i-kirâm when Hadrat Abû Bakr advised that Hadrat ’Umar should succeed him in caliphate after him. As Abdurrahmân bin ’Awf nominated Hadrat ’Uthmân as Khalîfa (after Hadrat ’Umar’s martyrdom), he stipulated that he should adhere to the course followed by the Shaikhayn. None of the audience raised an objection. Nor did Alî demur at all, although he was opposed to ’Uthmân’s being held superior to him ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’.

As long as Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ held office as Khalîfa, he acknowledged on various occasions that the Shaikayn were superior to him. He would scold anyone who expressed doubts about that fact. The greater ones of the Sahâba would hear him do so, and yet they would not even imply dissuasion. Enes bin Mâlik is quoted, in Bukhârî, as having said, “Abû Bakr is the closest person to the Messenger of Allah. On many occasions he proved to be the second person after the Messenger of Allah. He must take the lead as our Amîr. Stand up and pay homage to him!” According to another narration reported on the authority of Enes bin Mâlik in Bukhârî: When someone asked Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ about the portents of Doomsday, the Sultân of Universe questioned, “What have you prepared for Doomsday?” “I have done nothing. However, I love Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ very much,” replied the man. Upon this, the Habîbullah (Darling of Allah) declared, “On Doomsday, (and so on the Rising Day,) you will be with your beloved ones!” I was very happy when I heard that declaration of the blessed Messenger. “I, also, love the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, Abû Bakr and ’Umar. I hope that this love of mine will make me be with them, though I have failed to imitate them,” I said.

Hadrat Alî pronounced the following benediction: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless Abû Bakr with His Compassion! He compiled the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He served the Messenger of Allah as he migrated (to Medîna). So may Allâhu ta’âlâ illuminate ’Umar’s grave with nûr as he has illuminated our mosques!” Sâlim bin Abî Ja’d relates: There were forty thousand people provided with residence in Najrân. Hadrat ’Umar evicted them from their homes. Upon this they came to Hadrat Alî and begged for intercession. He dismissed them, saying, “Everything ’Umar does is rightful.” If Hadrat Alî had been critical of Hadrat ’Umar (and his doings), the problem caused by the people from Najrân would have been a propitious occasion to level criticisms at him. He didn’t do so. On the contrary, he praised him. In an interpretation of a dream narrated by Abû Ya’lâ, Hadrat Hasan praised Hadrat ’Umar. Hâkim quotes, in his book, Abdullah bin Ja’far Tayyâr as having said, “When Abû Bakr undertook governorship over us, we found him the best and the most compassionate of people.” As Zayd-i-Shahîd was leaving for war, he said, “My ancestors loved the Shaikhayn very much.” Hâkim’s book contains a number of statements made by Abdullah ibn Abbâs and laudatory of Hadrat ’Umar. Hasan bin Zayd is quoted in Imâm-i-Ahmad’s (book of hadîths called) Sunan as having stated: I heard my father Zayd say that he had heard his father Hasan say that he had heard his father Alî relate the following event: Rasûlullah and I were sitting, when Abû Bakr and ’Umar came over ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Yâ Alî! These two are the highest of the people of Paradise. With the exception of prophets, (who are naturally higher than all non-prophets,) there is no one higher than these (two) people!”

A person’s superiority to another means the former’s having good qualities in addition to those which both of them commonly possess. The source of all sorts of perfection is the sohbat of the Messenger of Allah, (i.e. being in his presence, hearing his spiritually nutritious voice, seeing his luminous face, enjoying his therapeutic breath, smelling his odorous scent, and maturing under his mellowing looks). All the Ashâb-i-kirâm were honoured with that most effective sohbat. This honour made them superior to all the rest of this Ummat ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. Abû Bakr as-Siddîq attended this sohbat more than did any other Sahâbî. Therefore he attained the highest grade. The Shaikhayn were gifted with the special talent of diagnosing the right and enlightening other people, in which they surpassed others. According to an observation reported to have been made by Abdullah bin Mes’ûd, ’Umar’s knowledge would weigh heavier than the total knowledge possessed by the entire nation of Arabia, were an assessment of that sort possible. Nearly all the hadîth-i-sherîfs known today were reported on the authority of the Shaikhayn. Hadîth-i-sherîfs reported on the authority of the Shaikhayn should not be considered to consist in those with a chain of transmitters containing the names of the Shaikhayn. All the Marfû’ hadîth-i-sherîfs existing in the books (of hadîth-i-sherîfs) were quoted by the Shaikhayn and forwarded by other Sahâbîs. The Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ sent the Sahâba to the countries conquered, with the command to spread the hadîth-i-sherîfs. According to a narration reported in the book of Hâkim, Musâ bin Alî bin Rebâh relates: Hadrat ’Umar said in a khutba, “If you have difficulty (understanding any âyat-i-kerîma) in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, consult ’Ubayy bin Kâ’b. Learn halâl and harâm from Mu’âdh, and the knowledge of Farâiz (Islamic science of dividing an inheritance) from Zayd bin Thâbit. As for ways of earning money; ask me and I will teach you!” According to a report in the book Istî’âb, ’Ubâda bin Sâmit was the first person appointed Qâdî [Judge] for Palestine. He had made a decision which Mu’âwiya, the time’s governor of Palestine, did not like and tried to coerce him into rescinding his decision and making one agreeable with his wishes. ’Ubâda went back to Medîna with the conclusion that it would be “impossible to administer justice at such a place.” ’Umar, the Khalîfa, rejected his resignation and sent him back, saying, “Justice is out of the question at a place devoid of a judge like you.” He also sent a written order to Mu’âwiya, bidding him “not to interfere with ’Ubâda’s business.” The book Istî’âb quotes Hasan as having said, “Abdullah bin Maghfel was one of the ten scholars whom Khalîfa ’Umar sent to our country to teach fiqh.” ’Umar bin Eshja’ is quoted as having said, in Dârimî’s book, “Khalîfa ’Umar said: There will come a time when some people will give wrong and aberrant meanings to the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Learn the truth from the scholars of Hadîth! For, the scholars of Hadîth know the Qur’ân al-kerîm best.” Dârimî’s book quotes Meymûn bin Mehrân as having said, “When a lawsuit was brought before Hadrat Abû Bakr, he would judge in accordance with the Qur’ân al-kerîm. If he could not find a solution in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, He would make a decision in accordance with a hadîth-i-sherîf. When he could not find a hadîth whereby to reach a decision, he would consult with the Sahâba, asking them if anyone knew a similar case which the Messenger of Allah had settled. When a unanimous answer was obtained, he would make hamd (pay gratitude and praise to Allâhu ta’âlâ) and then make a decision. When a report was not given, he would convene the notables of the Sahâba, tell them the problem, and make a decision in accordance with the consensus.” Hadrat ’Umar commanded Qâdî Shurayh to follow the same policy and to make a decision in accordance with his own ijtihâd when all that process did not bring a solution. Abdullah ibn Yazîd is quoted as having said, again, in Dârimî: “When Abdullah ibn Abbâs was asked a question, he would give an answer agreeable with the words of Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar when he could not derive an answer from the Qur’ân al-kerîm or from hadîth-i-sherîfs. If he could not extract a solution from their words, either, he would reach a conclusion by employing his own ijtihâd and give an answer accordingly.” According to another narration in Dârimî, Huzayfa said that giving a fatwâ required knowing the âyats that were mansûkh as well as those which were nâsikh.[67] When he was asked if there were any people who knew them, he replied that ’Umar-ubn-ul-Khattâb was one of them. In a narration written in Dârimî, Ziyâd bin Jedîr relates: I was talking with Hadrat ’Umar. “What things are destructive of Islam,” he questioned. With an apology, I solicited that I would rather hear his definition. He explained, “Things that will destroy Islam are: Religious authorities’ giving wrong information (in the name of preaching Islam); hypocrites’ misguiding Muslims by attempting to prove their personal heresies with the help of âyats and hadîths, (which they misinterpret); and heretics’ occupying positions that enable them to make decisions (about important religious matters).” According to another narration which, again, is reported in Dârimî, ’Amr bin Meymûn stated, “Two-thirds of knowledge was gone with ’Umar’s death.” When this was reported to Ibrâhîm, he said, “’Umar took away with him nine-tenths of it.” ’Amr bin Abû Sufyân reports in Dârimî: Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ said, “Write down what you know lest it should be forgotten!” This statement of Hadrat ’Umar’s formed a basis for the science of Hadîth.

There were quite a number of matters that had not been explained during the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’; nor had most of them been explicated yet by the end of the caliphate of Abû Bakr. Hadrat ’Umar provided a consensus for each and every one of them, leaving none of them unclear. As for those matters not explained by Hadrat ’Umar; there will not be a consensus on them till the end of the world. Had it not been for Hadrat ’Umar, the Islamic scholars would be in a continuous plight till the end of the world. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, who have been holding Islam’s flag, have based their conclusions on matters for which Hadrat ’Umar Fârûq arranged unanimous solutions.

In a narration reported in the book Musnad by Imâm Ahmad, Abdurrazzâq relates: I have not seen anyone who performed namâz better than Ibn Jurayh. Ibn Jurayh learned how to perform namâz from Atâ, who had learned it from Abdullah bin Zubayr, who had learned it from Abû Bakr as-Siddîq, and who had learned it from the Messenger of Allah. Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî wrote myriad pages in which he quoted the statements which Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar made in all the branches of fiqh. If a reasonable person reads those pages, he will realize that the two Khalîfas rendered great and zealous services not only in the expansion of the Islamic countries, but also in the spreading of Islam’s teachings. It was for that reason that Hadrat Alî remarked, “’Umar’s conclusions are always correct.” On another occasion he observed, “’Umar’s whip is more useful than our swords.” It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “The best of all ages is the one I am living in. The second best is the one to follow.” The Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘alaihim-ur-ridwân’ were superior to the Muslims after them because they intermediated between them and the Messenger of Allah. Muslims in each century have always been the master of their successors by conveying Islam to them. They are, therefore, more useful and better than the generations following them. The same rule applies to contemporaries, in which case teachers are held higher than their students. Hence all the virtues of the Shaikhayn. Hadrat Alî is quoted as having said as follows in the book of Imâm Ahmad: Whenever I heard a hadîth-i-sherîf from someone, I would administer an oath to him. Only after an oath would I accept (that the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted was a genuine one). Only, I would take for granted any hadîth-i-sherîf quoted by Abû Bakr. Abû Bakr quoted Rasûlullah ‘salla-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ as having stated: “If a person who has committed a sin makes an ablution, then performs two rak’ats of namâz and then makes istighfâr, his sin will be forgiven.” When Hadrat ’Umar was wounded, Abdullah bin Abbâs visited him and said, “Yâ Amîr-al-Mu’minîn (O you the Leader of Muslims)! I give you the Glad Tidings (that you will go into) Paradise. You became a Muslim at a time when all others denied. You cooperated with the Messenger of Allah in Jihâd as others campaigned animosity against him. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was pleased with you when he passed away. No one was opposed to your being Khalîfa. You are dying as a martyr.”

Abû Bakr as-Siddîq was the first man to profess belief in the Messenger of Allah. Hadrat Alî was a child when he became a Believer. He was in the home of the Messenger of Allah, under his protection. Also, there are scholars who report that Hadrat Abû Bakr embraced Islam even before Hadrat Alî. It was Abû Bakr who announced his îmân before anyone else and who thereby caused others to have îmân, too. Afîra’s slave ’Umar is quoted as having related as follows in Abû ’Amr’s book Istî’âb: “When Hadrat Alî became a Believer he concealed it even from his own father Abû Tâlib. Abû Bakr, on the other hand, told his friends about his Belief, inviting them to join him and embrace Islam.” Sha’bî relates: When Abdullah bin Abbâs was asked who the first Believer was, he said, “Haven’t you heard Hassân bin Thâbit’s poem?” The poem said: “Abû Bakr was the first man to profess his belief in the Messenger of Allah.” This qasîda (eulogy, poem) was widely known among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Hadrat Alî would recite it often. Jarîr reports on the authority of Abû Nadra that Hadrat Abû Bakr said to Hadrat Alî, “I became a Believer before you did,” and that Hadrat Alî did not deny it. Hadrat Abû Bakr had forty thousand dirhams of silver money when he confessed his îmân in Islam. He spent all his money for the Messenger of Allah and for the other Believers. He bought and emancipated seven slaves who were being tormented for having embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah would honour Abû Bakr’s place twice daily, once in the morning and once in the evening, during his thirteen-year stay in Mekka. This fact is reported in Bukhârî. Rasûlullah was very grieved when Hadrat Khadîja, (his first blessed spouse,) passed away. Hadrat Abû Bakr held his daughter Âisha by the hand and said, “O Messenger of Allah! Please do accept Âisha for a wife. Let her assuage your grief by serving you.” Rasûlullah accepted Âisha in Medîna. Abû Bakr as-Siddîq was the first person to affirm (Rasûlullah’s ascent to heaven termed) Mi’râj. As Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ migrated from Mekka to Medîna, Hadrat Abû Bakr accompanied him, serving him round the clock. Also, he did not leave Rasûlullah alone even for a single moment during the Holy War of Badr. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ prayed very earnestly for victory. When Abû Bakr sensed that the prayers had been accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ), he said, “Yâ Rasûlallah (O Messenger of Allah)! Do not worry any more! Allâhu ta’âlâ will be with us.” Such advanced sparks of inspiration to the Sahâba before the arrival of Wahy (revelation of Divine Will) took place quite a few times. Examples of this phenomenal antecedence are Abdullah bin Zayd’s dream prior to the establishment of azân (adhân)[68] and Hadrat ’Umar’s (opinion called) qiyâs (over the prisoners of war captivated in the Holy War of Badr), which also took place before the revelation.

In the Holy War of Uhud, Hadrat Abû Bakr tried his utmost to protect Rasûlullah. It was Hadrat Abû Bakr, again, who was given the task of defending a part of the trench in the Holy War of Hendek (Trench). Today’s (mosque called) Masjîd-i-Siddîq occupies that cite. In the Holy War of Haybar, Abû Bakr fought for the conquest of several fortresses. Berîda-i-Eslemî is quoted, in Hâkim’s book, as having related: Whenever Rasûlullah suffered from the headache called Shaqîqa, he would not go out for two days. When the army arrived at Haybar, the headache began again, whereon he did not leave his tent. Abû Bakr took the flag and embarked on a vehement fight. When the Messenger of Allah conquered Mekka and entered the mosque, Abû Bakr took his own father, tied up, to Rasûlullah and told him to profess îmân. When the blessed Messenger said, “Yâ Abâ Bakr! You’d better not have brought this old person here. We would just as soon go to his place,” he replied, “O Messenger of Allah! It’s rather for him to come to you. Rasûlullah had Abû Bakr’s father sit before his blessed knees, rubbed his blessed hand gently on his chest, and made his invitation: “Be a Muslim!” The lucky father presently accepted the invitation and joined the Believers. Of all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’, Abû Bakr was the only person whose father as well as his sons joined the Believers.

In the ninth year of the Hijrat (Hegira), Rasûlullah appointed Hadrat Abû Bakr as Amîr for the performance of hajj. Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, one of Hadrat Alî’s sons, relates: “Berâat sûra was revealed after Abû Bakr’s departure for hajj. The blessed Messenger recited the sûra to Hadrat Alî and commanded him to recite it to the hâdjis (pilgrims) at Minâ on the day of Nahr. Upon seeing Hadrat Alî in Mekka, Hadrat Abû Bakr asked him if he was there in the capacity of Amîr or on an official duty. When Hadrat Alî replied that he had been sent on a duty, Hadrat Abû Bakr had all the people perform hajj. When the day of Nahr arrived, Hadrat Alî called adhân for the hâdjis and recited the Berâat sûra to them, adding Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ commandments.”

During the farewell pilgrimage, (the last hajj which the Messenger of Allah made and in which he made a farewell speech to the Sahâba,) Rasûlullah’s and Abû Bakr’s personal belongings were on the same camel. When Rasûlullah became ill, he came to the mosque and made a long (speech called) khutba. First he pronounced benedictions on those (blessed Sahâbîs) who had attained martyrdom in the Holy War of Uhud and made istighfâr on behalf of them. Then he stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ blesses a slave of His with a choice between remaining in the world and migrating to the Hereafter. So the slave chooses to attain the gifts of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” Upon this statement Hadrat Abû Bakr, the only person who sensed that it implied an imminent departure of the Messenger of Allah from this transient world, implored in tears, “Yâ Rasûlallah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’! Please do not die, yourself! Let us die, and let our children die, in your stead!”

Hadrat ’Umar and twenty other Sahâbîs migrated to Medîna before the Messenger of Allah. (Afterwards,) he served as a counsellor to Hadrat Abû Bakr and as a qâdî under him. Also, Hadrat ’Umar was the first Islamic judge. The Messenger of Allah had two duties. One of them was to teach the Book (the Qur’ân al-kerîm) and the Sunnat (the words, the manners, the acts of worship of the Messenger of Allah, which were explanatory and illustrative of the Qur’ân al-kerîm and complementary and supplementary to the Qur’ân al-kerîm). His second duty was to execute and enforce the Islamic principles and was termed tedbîr-i-menzil and siyâsat-i-medîna. When Hadrat ’Umar became Khalîfa, he carried on both the duties perfectly. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had a dream, in which he consumed a certain amount of a glass of milk, giving the remainder to Hadrat ’Umar. He interpreted his dream as indicative of knowledge. Indeed, that Hadrat ’Umar was the most knowledgeable person of his time was unanimously stated by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. His caliphate was a divine gift through which Allâhu ta’âlâ blessed the Muslims with His Compassion. When the city of Hums was conquered in the fifteenth year of the Hijrat, Heraclius, the Kaiser of Byzantium, fled to Constantinople [today’s Istanbul]. Seven thousand Muslims won the battle of Qadsiya against the sixty-thousand-strong Iranian army, who were magians. In the sixteenth year Halep (Aleppo) and Antakya (Antioch) were taken by way of peace. The same year Abû Ubayda made the city of Kûfa, and Hadrat ’Umar entered the Bayt-ul-muqaddas (Jerusalem). In the twenty-first year Egypt was conquered and the battle of Nahâvand was won. In the twenty-second year Azerbaijan was conquered by Mughîra bin Shu’ba, and Trablusgharb (Tripoli in N. Africa) by ’Amr ibn ’Âs. The following information is provided in Rawda-t-ul-ahbâb: One thousand and thirty-six major cities were conquered in the time of Hadrat ’Umar. Four thousand mosques were built, four thousand churches became dilapidated (for disuse), and nineteen hundred minbars were made for Friday prayer. Hadrat ’Umar ’radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was the Khalîfa who established the first Islamic army and the earliest military training and drills.

Prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ were sent as a Compassion (of Allâhu ta’âlâ) for the entire humanity. They eliminated nescience and cruelty. This state of usefulness and compassion preserved its full sense and perfection throughout the caliphates of the Shaikhayn, too. As a matter of fact, that state of affairs constituted the main component for the definition of ‘caliphate’. That no one else after the Shaikhayn accomplished that degree of substitution is a historical fact. Differences and bloodshed began after them. The Shaikhayn developed the most powerful Islam from the weakest one. Others did not have a share from that service. None of the Islamic teachings found by way of ijmâ’ (consensus of the Sahâba) during the caliphates of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ lapsed into the category of differences (of ijtihâd) among the four (true) Madhhabs. The differences were in matters which the Shaikhayn had not clarified. Comprehending this word of ours requires scholarly knowledge in (the Islamic science termed) Usûl. It beats the inexpert men of religion.

Every Muslim must think well! What are the honours that distinguish him from disbelievers, from fire-worshippers? The first and foremost of these honours is the way of Qur’ân al-kerîm. And it is the Shaikhayn who compiled the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is Hadrat ’Umar who compiled the teachings of aqâ’id (tenets of belief) and fiqh (teachings pertaining to religious practices), who put forward the teachings of ijmâ’, who explicated the Islamic facts that had formerly been undisclosed, and who gathered the Sahâba and performed qiyâs (analogy; solving religious problems and matters by way of analogy). He appointed a hâfid of Qur’ân al-kerîm and a scholar of Hadîth to each city. All the Islamic teachings that are known today were forwarded by the Shaikhayn. It is the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ who guided the Arabs as well as the Persians to hidâyat. And the Arabs and the Persians, in their turn, served as vehicles for the salvation and civilization of the entire humanity. No one can deny this fact. All people owe their faith to the Shaikhayn. Not to realize this is identical with not seeing the sun.

The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat state that the Shaikhayn, (Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar,) are the highest Muslims, and the two sons-in-law (of the Messenger of Allah, i.e. Hadrat ’Uthmân and Hadrat Alî,) must be loved dearly. For, the first duty of a Muslim is to wish to adapt himself to the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth-i-sherîfs, and the second duty is to learn them. If he does not learn them he will not be able to adapt himself to Islam and will become a mulhid. It is the Shaikhayn who explicated, compiled and conveyed these teachings.

A Muslim affiliated in one of the four (true) Madhhabs holds the opinion that the imâm (leader) of his Madhhab is the highest (of all four imâms). If he does not believe so, it will not be sahîh (acceptable) for him to adapt himself to that Madhhab. Likewise, if a person does not believe in the superiority of those people who preserved and forwarded the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth-i-sherîfs and conveyed the meanings in both of them, he cannot possibly be one who has adapted himself to a religion taught by them. According to Shiites, the Khalîfa must be superior to all the other Muslims, a sinless person, and one who has been chosen by Allâhu ta’âlâ and by His Messenger. This word of theirs applies to some situations, although it cannot be admitted in its entirety. The precondition that the Khalîfa must be superior to the entire Ummat (all Muslims) is relevant with those Khalîfas who represent the Prophet. For, those people derive meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and from hadîth-i-sherîfs and communicate Islam (to other people). They spread Islam everywhere. Unless those people are higher than all the other Muslims, their doings will not be dependable. The word ‘ma’thûm (sinless)’ (used in the first precondition) ought to be changed into ‘mahfûz (protected, guarded)’. Indeed, Allâhu ta’âlâ protects them and gives them strength. As for the second precondition expressed as, “... who has been chosen by Allâhu ta’âlâ and by His Messenger;” it should be modified into “... who has been implied in the nass (âyats and hadîths with clear meanings).” This is the explanation made by the (true scholars called) Ahl as-Sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at. By way of this explanation they prove that the Shaikhayn, and even all four of them were rightly-guided Khalîfas. The so-called precondition is a sine qua non in the case of the early Khalîfas. For, they were the founders of Islam and the teachers who spread Islam everywhere. Yet those who succeeded the earliest four Khalîfas were Melik-i-’adûd. They were mere presidents and chiefs. Knowledge was held by other people. So was the case with muftîs. In the early years of Islam, muftîs would have to be scholarly people. Today, however, a certain degree of ability to read and understand the books written by those early scholars will do for a person to be a muftî. As for being a sinless person; sinlessness in this sense is dependent on customs and traditions. For, social, economic and business transactions among people undergo mutations and modifications with time, in correspondence with situations, customs and traditions. Fundamental sciences based on sheer mind are inapplicable in the determination of sinlessness.

Hadrat ’Uthmân also was a rightly-guided Khalîfa. Bîda, a paternal aunt of the Messenger of Allah, was Hadrat ’Uthmân’s mother’s mother. Even in the (pre-Islamic) time of nescience, (which is called the time of ‘Jâhiliyya’,) he never stained himself with foul indulgences such as fornication and drinking. He was one of the earliest Believers. He endured all the severe torment which his paternal uncle inflicted on him in order to coerce him out of Islam. He attained the honour of two marriages both with daughters of the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’.[69] Leaving his home, his property and his commercial business for the sake of Allah, he migrated to Abyssinia. Afterwards, he migrated to Medîna, too. He was one of the Muhâjirs who compiled the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He did not join the Holy Wars of Badr and Uhud, and he was absent during the oath of allegiance at Hudaybiyya, for he had been sent somewhere else on a mission before each of those events. He fought in all the other Holy Wars. At the time of (Holy War at) Badr he was ordered (by Rasûlullah) to stay in Medîna and look after the blessed daughter of the Messenger of Allah, (Hadrat Ruqayya, who was at the same time Hadrat ’Uthmân’s blessed wife and had repaired to bed with some desperate illness immediately previous to the Holy War and naturally needed her beloved spouse to take care of her). However, he was given the glad tidings that he would attain the same thawâb (blessings and rewards in the Hereafter) and ghanîmat he would have been given had he joined the Holy War. As for the Holy War of Uhud; an âyat-i-kerîma was revealed to inform that those who were absent from the blessed event would be forgiven. Also, it is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf that during the event of Hudaybiyya Hadrat ’Uthmân was out on a duty which Rasûlullah had assigned to him by the order of Allâhu ta’âlâ. (During the oath of allegiance at Hudaybiyya, when it was ’Uthmân’s turn to make musâfaha with Rasûlullah, i.e. to shake hands with him,) Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ made musâfaha by holding one of his own blessed hands with the other, which he said was “ ’Uthmân’s hand.” (So generous was he in dispensing for the sake of Allah that one day) he bought a well of water for the purpose of delivering the Sahâba from thirst. He rendered a great service for the Holy War of Tabuk by donating nine hundred and fifty camels and fifty horses and an incalculable amount of cash. He was honoured with a special hadîth-i-sherîf, which reads as follows: “Nothing which ’Uthmân will do from today on will harm him!” When, one day, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If a person enlarges our mosque there will be a better one awaiting him in Paradise,” he, (Hadrat ’Uthmân,) bought the six parcels of land around it and added them to the building plot of the mosque. One day, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, Abû Bakr, ’Umar and ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ were on a mountain called Subayr, when an earthquake made itself felt. “O Subayr! Do not shudder! There is a Prophet, a Siddîq, and (two) Martyrs on thee!” Thus he gave the Glad Tidings that ’Umar and ’Uthmân would attain martyrdom. In another hadîth-i-sherîf, which reads, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will put a shirt on you. If others try to take it off, do not accede to take it off,” he, (Hadrat ’Uthmân,) was forewarned about his future caliphate. It fell to his lot to be blessed with the honour of compiling the Qur’ân al-kerîm and spreading it on the earth. In his time did people inhabiting the Asian countries up to Kabul and the Anatolian lands as far as Istanbul attain Islam. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ took Hadrat ’Uthmân into his arms and remarked endearingly, “You are my darling both in the world and in the Hereafter!” On another occasion, he, (the blessed Prophet,) said to Talha, “O Talha! Every prophet will have a friend from among his ummat. And ’Uthmân is my friend in Paradise.”

A number of people slack in faith and weak in belief left Egypt and came to Medîna. They were not Sahâbîs, nor were they even in that blessed group of Muslims called Tâbi’în. They harbored a grudge against the Sahâba. They approached Hadrat ’Uthmân with coercive methods, demanding that he make a choice among the following three alternatives: “Either retire from caliphate, or leave us the authority to appoint and dismiss commanders and governors; and in case of neither choice we shall kill you.” Obeying Rasûlullah’s advice, Hadrat ’Uthmân did not retire from caliphate. To leave the authority to them, on the other hand, would mean to retire from office; so he did not accede to the second choice, either. Thereupon the Egyptians besieged the Khalîfa’s house. Some of the Sahâba who were in Medîna did not expect a fatal escalation of the issue. They were of the opinion that the Egyptians would simply go back. Others, most of them, incidentally, lacked the power and number to resist the unruly mob. ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ followed the example of the better one of the two sons of Âdam ‘alaihis-salâm’. Enduring the catastrophic events, he attained martyrdom. The Ashâb-i-kirâm grieved very bitterly over the event. They took action lest other disasters should follow. Frightened, the Egyptians had recourse to a hasty installation of Hadrat Alî in caliphate. Naturally, the Ashâb-i-kirâm would not be opposed to it. So Hadrat Alî was elected Khalîfa. Some of the Sahâba, including Hadrat Âisha, Talha, Zubayr, and most of the Sons of Umayya chased the murderers as far as Basra. According to them the caliphate election was marred with fitna because of the murderers’ initiative in the process. The Khalîfa followed them to Basra. The Egyptians applied the strategy of keeping around the Khalîfa. No agreement was reached, whereupon the Khalîfa, (Hadrat Alî,) went to Kûfa. Recruiting soldiers there, he marched towards Basra. Hence the event called Jamal (Camel). In the meantime, Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, governor of Damascus, became involved in the issue, upon which the war of Siffîn broke out. However, the arbitrators between the two parties brought Hadrat Mu’âwiya to office as the new Khalîfa. Most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and most of the Muslims approved of the decision. Some malicious rabble-rousers assembled at a place called Harûrâ. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ marched against them, killing most of the instigators, who have been called Khawârij (Khârijîs, Khârijites) ever since. One of the survivors, [someone named Abdurrahmân ibn Muljam,] martyred Hadrat Alî as he was walking to the mosque for morning prayer.

According to the Islamic scholars, Hadrat Alî had nothing to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân. He himself stated this fact in his various khutbas. Imâm Nawawî observes, “Hadrat ’Uthmân was a rightly-guided Khalîfa. His martyrdom was an act of cruelty. He was martyred by iniquitous sinners. None of the Sahâbîs had a hand in the savage homicide. From Egypt were they, the villains. The Sahâbîs in Medîna were unable to prevent them. Also, the caliphate of Hadrat Alî was sahîh (true, acceptable, canonically correct) according to the consensus of scholars. There was not another Khalîfa as long as he lived. Hadrat Mu’âwiya also was a just and superior person. He was a Sahâbî. The so-called wars among them, (i.e. battles of Jamal and Siffîn,) were consequent upon doubts. Each of the parties considered that the course they were following was the right one. Those wars did not cause any one of them to fall from justice. Theirs was a difference of ijtihâd, like the differences among the imâms of Madhhabs. The differences did not cause any one of them to fall from grace.” During those wars, the Sahâba had three different ijtihâds: The first group considered that Hadrat Alî’s caliphate was rightful. According to them the other party were bâghîs (rebels). So, it was wâjib, in their ijtihâd, for them to make war against the rebels. According to the second ijtihâd, the other party were right. “Hadrat Alî was not elected Khalîfa by all the Muslims. The people of Medîna were coerced and intimidated into voting for him. And the people of Kûfa joined the election not as a result of ijtihâd, but for malicious motives,” they argued. The third group did not make a choice between the two parties. It was therefore wâjib for them not to join the war at all. For, it is not halâl (canonically legal) to fight against a Muslim who is not rebellious.

Abdulqâdir Geylânî ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ sirrah-ul ’azîz’ gives the following advice in his book Ghunya: “According to Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal, we should not talk about the wars that took place among the Sahâba such as Hadrat Talha and Zubayr and Hadrat Âisha and Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’. For Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that in the Hereafter there will not be any discord among them and that they will be chatting cordially with one another in Paradise. Hadrat Alî was the rightful party in those wars. For he believed that it was a sahîh election that brought him to caliphate. According to him, therefore, those who were opposed to his caliphate were bâghîs and it was permissible for him to make war against them. As for Hadrat Mu’âwiya and Talha and Zubayr, who fought against Hadrat Alî, ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’; they were of the opinion that a retaliation was necessary against the murderers of the martyred Khalîfa, (Hadrat ’Uthmân). And all the murderers were in Hadrat Alî’s army. Muslims ought to avoid passing judgement on the performances of those great people, our superiors par excellence, and leave the solution of the matters among them to Allâhu ta’âlâ.”

It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “Ammâr bin Yâser will be martyred by bâghîs. He will be inviting them to Paradise. And they, by contrast, will be calling him to Hell.” What this faqîr, [i.e. Hadrat Shâh Waliyyullah Ahmad Sâhib Dahlawî,] understands from the hadîth-i-sherîf is this: “Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was the highest Muslim of his time. If the highest Muslim is elected as Khalîfa, matters will be dealt with in a manner most compatible with Islam. Electing someone else will entail an incidental slackening in the execution of Islamic matters. The first choice will lead to Paradise, whereas the second one will direct down into Hell. Ammâr bin Yâser made the first choice. This analysis of the hadîth-i-sherîf confirms Hadrat Alî’s honour and exonerates the other party.” Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “A mujtahid sometimes finds the truth. And sometimes he errs.” Notables of the Sahâba such as Sa’d bin Abî Waqqâs and Abdullah bin ’Umar and Usâma bin Zayd and Abû Mûsa-l-Ash’arî and Abû Mes’ûd and many another Sahâbî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ did not take part in the wars. The hadîth-i-sherîf that provided guidance for those people was: “At times of fitna (turmoil, commotion, chaos) stay at home!” However, all those people were true lovers of Hadrat Alî; they would lavish praise on him and acknowledge that he was the worthiest candidate for caliphate. The statements made by some of them indicate that what they were against was the irregularity of the caliphate election, rather than Hadrat Alî’s aptitude for caliphate.

An important note: Many people hold the supposition that those Sahâbîs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ who kept away from the war did so for the purpose of obeying the divine commandment: “Do not make war against Muslims!” However, this commandment means, “Do not make war against the (Muslim) government!” As for those who joined the war; according to them, not to join the war would cause the fitna and fesâd to escalate. They believed that they had to prevent the fesâd (sedition, confusion, mischief). In my, the faqîr’s, opinion, preventing the fesâd would have been impossible without disturbance to a certain extent, which in turn involves some casualties. The recommended policy to be followed in such cases would be not to make war in support of a Khalîfa whose election was made in defiance of the regular procedures and not to rise against a Khalîfa elected likewise.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ knew, owing to his nûr of firâsat (insight), that the fesâd would be unavoidable. Therefore he stated, “There will arise fitnas after me. At that time those who will be sitting away are better than those who will be involved in the fitnas.”

The divine method of Allâhu ta’âlâ is such that he distinguished each of His beloved slaves from others by means of an inborn special superiority. Whereas Hadrat Abû Bakr excelled in mercy and compassion, Hadrat ’Umar surpassed his colleagues in vehemence and austerity. Dâwûd (David) and Suleymân (Solomon) ‘alaihim-as-salâm’ were stately presidents, while Îsâ (Jesus), Yûnus (Jonah) and Yahyâ (John) ‘alaihim-as-salâm’ were fond of solitude. Hassân bin Thâbit would laud and praise the Messenger of Allah in his poetry, which won him the Glad Tidings that his destination was Paradise. ’Ubayy bin Kâ’b was renowned for having memorized the Qur’ân al-kerîm, Abdullah bin Mes’ûd for his knowledge in the science of fiqh, and Khâlid bin Walîd for his prowess in warfare. Back to Hadrat Abû Bakr; he was gifted with a variety of superiorities; for instance, he was by far ahead of others for his constant, loving and true attendance to the sohbat (of Rasûlullah); for his zealous devotion, which was so strong that he always yearned for an opportunity to sacrifice himself for the sake of Rasûlullah; and for his readiness to sacrifice his life, his property and his position for the sake of Rasûlullah or in return for the promulgation of Islam. Spreading Islam fell to Hadrat ’Umar’s lot. And Hadrat ’Uthmân outshone all the others for his having been the indispensable rescuer at all times of desperate financial straits; for his deep sense of shame (hayâ); for his admirable self-control in moments of wrath; for his tahârat (cleanliness), qirâat (reading or reciting the Qur’ân al-kerîm); and for the extraordinary charity he dispensed to the poor. And finally, Hadrat Alî was peerless for his blood-relationship to Rasûlullah; for the exceptional singularity that he had been raised in Rasûlullah’s hand and under his blessed training; for his valour, zuhd, wara’, intelligence and eloquence. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ cited these superior qualities of his Sahâba one by one and praised them all ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was terjumân-i-ghayb. He was gifted with the benefit to foretell future events. He used to state, beforehand, the superior duties that his Sahâba would perform later. All the events he foretold came true. There was not a single event that he foretold and yet which would not happen. The claim that “caliphate belongs to Alî and his progeny by rights” is quite groundless. Had a right of that sort ever been stated (by the blessed Prophet or even implied in a single âyat-i-kerîma) beforehand, things would have happened accordingly. They would have taken possession of caliphate once and for all, and no other person would have been able to lay hands on it. That the Messenger of Allah had not foretold their caliphate is manifest in the fact that they did not become Khalîfas, which, in passing, betrays the downright falsehood which they dishonestly fabricate in the name of information.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was ahead of all other people in observing everybody’s rights. For that matter, he praised Hadrat Abbâs, (who was his paternal uncle,) by saying, “The paternal uncle is like the father.” He said about Fâtima, (his blessed daughter): “He who hurts her will have hurt me (by doing so).” About Hadrat Abû Bakr he said, “Why do you ignore my feelings by hurting my friend?” And he said about Hadrat Alî: “He is from me. And I am from him.” and “For whomever I am the mawlâ, Alî, too, must be his mawlâ.” A person with wisdom and reason will not confuse a praisal emanating from kinship with a praisal based on religious priority and suitability for caliphate. The remark, “I am from him. And he is from me,” indicates an affinity based on kinship and is intended to observe the right of kinship. It does not indicate fadl-i-kullî, that is, superiority in every respect. For, statements of that sort was made not only about Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Fâtima, but also about Hadrat Abbâs. In fact, similar utterances were made concerning Durra, Abû Lahab’s daughter. Durra is reported to have related the following event in Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal’s book: “I was in Âisha’s room, when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ came in and said, “I shall make ablution. Bring me some water!” Âisha and I brought a large bowl and a water ewer. He made an ablution and turned to me, saying, ‘You are from me, and I am from you!’ ” It is quite an obvious fact that this utterance was intended as a requirement for kinship, rather than an indication of priority.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ frequently uttered the words, “I love ...,” concerning various people. These words have different meanings, depending on the situations and times they were said as well as on the people they concerned. As a matter of fact, there are various kinds of love. One loves one’s spouse, one’s children, one’s friends and one’s master with different types of affection. A person may love someone with a certain type and a certain degree of affection, and at the same time he may love another person more, although with another kind of affection. By the same token, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ said, “I love Âisha very much,” at a certain place, and, “I love Usâma very much,” at another place, and, “I love Abû Bakr very much,” at a third place, and, “I love Alî very much,” at a fourth place. That different types of love are involved is a bare fact.

A person’s being superior to another means his having more of the same attribute than does the latter. The superiority may be in the entirety of the attribute as well as in its parts only. One of the two people may be superior in one of the parts and the other in another part. For instance, one part of courage may exist in a wrestler’s [or sportsman’s] nature, while another part may be possessed by a president. The president’s courage is certainly more valuable than that of the wrestler. The attribute knowledge has various branches. To understand a question well, and not to confuse it with other matters, is one of the parts. Likewise, zuhd is composed of two categories: The zuhd of the Awliyâ is to avoid (Islam’s prohibitions termed) harâm, whereas the zuhd of prophets is not to think of anything other than promulgating Islam.

Promulgating Islam requires propagating the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth-i-sherîfs. To this end, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ commended some of the Ashâb-i-kirâm on their profound knowledge, -they had committed the entire Qur’ân al-kerîm to their heart-, and encouraged others to learn from them. The prophetic commendation was tantamount to a diploma for them. It also equipped them with verbal credentials to stimulate some people who were otherwise quite unlikely to identify them. This superiority is the common property of all the Ashâb-i-kirâm.

It is a fact stated in (an âyat-i-kerîma of) the Qur’ân al-kerîm that those who sacrificed their property and made jihâd in the way of Allah before the conquest of Mekka were superior (to those who did so afterwards). According to the Ashâb-i-kirâm, the revelation of that âyat-i-kerîma was intended for Abû Bakr as-Siddîq. For he was the first Muslim to sacrifice his property and make jihâd. Doing this duty throughout his life, he was superior to those who began doing so later, as well as to those who did not live long enough to do so due to an early martyrdom, although they were early enough in the performance of the two sacred duties.

It was stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “After me pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar!” A person to be paid homage to has to be a scholar. When Hadrat ’Umar was asked a question, he would convene the Sahâba, and they would reach a consensus. Not so was the case in the time of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Extremely keen-sighted and profoundly learned, Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ would immediately provide an answer. However, so eloquent, succinct and epigrammatic was his style as he talked that his statements were mostly susceptible to misundertandings on the average intellectual level. In fact, some people were misled to the conclusion that he had had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân. His delicate elucidations in the science of fiqh, which were meant to state some important facts, such as the canonical illicitness (harâm) of the (temporary marriage termed) mut’a nikâh, the obligation (farz) to wash the feet in ablution, and many other similar matters, led many people to a complete misapprehension, causing differences among scholars. By contrast, the answers which Hadrat ’Umar had provided by having recourse to the consensus of the Sahâba were quite clear and understandable. For instance, the statement which purports, “The process of drawing lots is a method employed to choose one of the several people who are equal in all the criteria (used in a certain assessment), rather than an (inanimate) arbitration whereby to determine the rightful party,” belongs to Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’.

Imâm Alî’s statements were studied by the groups Ahl as-Sunnat, Imâmiyya and Zaydiyya, each group deriving different meanings. The groups Zaydiyya and Imâmiyya denied (the spiritual grades of) Wilâyat. During the caliphates of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ there were no differences among the Muslims. Altogether, they made jihâd against the disbelievers. When contentions began in the time of Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh, the Muslims began to decimate one another instead of fighting against the disbelievers. Not only was Hadrat Alî unable to suppress the fitna. He also failed to keep the caliphate in his possession.

Question: The number of the Sahâba was greater during the caliphates of the first two Khalîfas. So they helped the Khalîfas. Not only was there a considerable decrease in the number of the Sahâba by the time Hadrat Alî ascended to the caliphate, the ignorant and aberrant new conversions in various countries made such utter disturbances as the first two Khalîfas could not have put down. Would it be fair, then to say that they were superior in this respect as well?

Answer: The fayz and blessings created and radiated by Allâhu ta’âlâ reach each and every individual without any discrimination. It is the divine method of Allâhu ta’âlâ to send His fayz and blessings through a cause, i.e. a person. The cause has to be eligible to carry the blessing concerned. Hence, a person who causes goodness is a good one, whereas one who causes perdition and torment is not a good one, and the good are graded in accordance with the degree of goodness they are gifted with. It would be incorrect to base the argument on the ungrounded hypothesis that there were not ignorant and aberrant people in the times of the first two Khalîfas. As soon as Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away, most of the Arabian people abandoned Islam. They martyred the Sahâbîs sent to them on missions. The stringent and painstaking measures taken by the two Khalîfas prevented a catastrophic disaster. A wise person simply does not attempt to explain away those events by calling them mere chance events. An attempt to deny the services accomplished by invoking the maxim “destiny is invincible” would mean to deny the (Muslim’s duty called) Amr-i-ma’rûf and Nahy-i-munkâr.[70] Also, it would pave the way to denying Hadrat Alî’s superiority.

Question: Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ making war against the Muslims was intended for the defence of right and for the annihilation of wrong. Then, should we not consider those practices of his as acts of jihâd?

Answer: That Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ endeavoured for right and goodness is a well-known fact. No blame can be ascribed to him as regards that. However, it would not be correct to say that he made the wars by the order of the Messenger of Allah. For, if it had been foreordained for him to quell the fitnas, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ would have commanded him to do so, and thereby he would have been the cause of an auspicious event.

As is known, he (Rasûlullah) had foretold the conquests of Damascus and Iraq. Consequently, the (first) two Khalîfas’ efforts for the fulfillment of that purpose bore fruit. The fesâds (in Hadrat Alî’s time), on the other hand, could not be eliminated. The measures which Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ took in order to quash the fitna only stirred the flames. The events indicate that Allâhu ta’âlâ had not promised His blessed Messenger that He would give (Hadrat Alî) success (in the elimination of fitna). Not so was the case with Hadrat Alî’s war against the Khârijites. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had mentioned that war, adding the Glad Tidings that Hadrat Alî would score a victory.

In the times of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ the Muslims were in unison with one another in adapting themselves to the teachings of fiqh and in understanding the ma’rifats (pieces of heavenly information) called ihsân and tarîqat. The Khalîfa (Hadrat Abû Bakr or Hadrat ’Umar) would chastise any offenders, although they were his colleagues who had kept company with him in the sohbats of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. When Sa’d bin Abî Waqqâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ replaced the door of his house with one fitted in Persian style, Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had it broken. He dismissed such a celebrated commander as Khâlid bin Walid, and rebuked ’Amr ibn ’Âs, the governor of Egypt. As for the situations in the time of Hadrat Alî; suffice it to say that there were differences even in the business of acknowledging the Khalîfa. A considerable number of the Muslims were opposed to his ideas concerning the retaliation against the murderers of Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ and his concession to Hadrat Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ proposal to go to arbitration. People who attended the sohbat of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ would adapt themselves to Islam and purify their hearts even though they were not Sahâbîs. Those who accompanied Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, on the other hand, were mostly soldiers. Their hearts were unclean. Some of them were hostile towards him. In fact, the Khalîfa (Hadrat Alî) would complain about those people on the minbar (pulpit in a mosque). People who persecuted Hadrat Hasan ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ and those who martyred Hadrat Husayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ were all from among the people of Kûfa. The Khalîfa (Hadrat Alî) did have admirers as well, yet those people were inordinate in their endearments, so that they were another group who incurred Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ complaints.

Question: Hadrat Alî was well-endowed in spirituality. He was like an angel. So, he failed to get along with people. The Shaikhayn, in contrast, were humanly like anyone else. It was easy for them to get along with their human species. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ was denied even by his own relations. The blame fell not on the Messenger of Allah, but on the deniers?

Answer: According to the scholars Ahl as-Sunnat ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ’, it is not permissible to assign any blame to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’. In this book, we shall discuss the matter within the Sunnî parameters, resting our argument on a gradation of superiorities, rather than on an assessment of blames. Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded His Habîb (Darling, Beloved) ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ to handle the hypocrites with simulation, not to tell uneducated people subtle matters, and to treat everybody in a manner suitable with their personal traits. Thus it was easy for him to train them and to give them fayz. It was to that end that Allâhu ta’âlâ sent His prophets ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ as human beings, and not as angels. Certainly, therefore, this human attribute is a favorable point in the comparison of Khalîfas. It adds to its possessor’s success in spreading Islam and training and educating people. Any attitudes obstructive to the performance of these duties, regardless of their beneficial aspects, including vehemence, wara’, belles lettres, isolation from people, will detract from the value of a Khalîfa. The thawâbs (blessings and rewards) earned by benefactors and charitable people will also be given to their masters (teachers) and to those who caused their charity. This is another viewpoint from which the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ must have been superior to Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’.

Before the Hijrat, the unbelievers perpetrated inconceivable persecutions and savageries against Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ resisted against them. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was a child then. After the Hijrat Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was superior in fighting the enemy, whereas the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ held the ascendancy in their consultation with Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. After the decease of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’, so far-flung and rapid was the spreading of Islam and so great was the number of the countries conquered during the caliphates of the Shaikhayn that no other place has witnessed a success comparable to theirs ever since. Conversely, no place was conquered in the time of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. In fact, jihâd came to a complete standstill.

Most of the narrators who reported hadîths on the authority of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ were soldiers recruited from here and there. They are anonymous. Their narrations, therefore, are not authentic. Very few of the scholars of Medîna and Damascus reported hadîths on the authority of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’.

Islam’s third basic science after the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth is Fiqh. The teachings of fiqh are mainly what Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ established by way of consensus. Most Muslims are in one of the three Madhhabs, namely Hanafî, Mâlikî and Shâfi’î. The source of the Mâlikî Madhhab is the book entitled Muwattâ, which contains very few matters conveyed from Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. So is the case with Imâm Abû Hanîfa’s ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ book, Musnad, which is the basis for the Hanafî Madhhab, as well as the books written by (his disciple) Imâm Muhammad ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’. Another book in the same category is Imâm Shâfi’î’s Musnad, which contains even fewer. Next after the teachings of fiqh are the teachings of Siyer. In that branch also, Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is no different from other Sahâbîs. As for the teachings of Tasawwuf; in this branch, which consists of a process termed Sulûk and purification of the heart, the words belonging to Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ are not more numerous than those of other Sahâbîs such as Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd and Abdullah bin ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’.

Question: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ knew the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth-i-sherîfs better than any other person. Would it be fair to blame that exalted Imâm for the negligence of those weak people who failed to convey what they heard from him properly to the leaders of the Madhhabs?

Answer: Certainly, their failure could not undermine the high position of Hadrat Imâm. Nor would it by any means deprive him from his right to caliphate. Yet a Khalîfa has to be dominant and overpowering. If Allâhu ta’âlâ has chosen a Khalîfa from among several rightful candidates each of whom fulfills the conditions required for the office, he definitely must have an additional superiority. This innate superiority is emphasized with the superiority of the services he will be doing. In other words, superiority in services will regenerate the innate superiority. Allâhu ta’âlâ gives this special superiority to a person who has the innate superiority and who exerts himself to the bargain.

The Shaikhayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ superiority with respect to purity of heart, i.e. in matters of Tasawwuf, can be described in two different ways: The zuhd[71] of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was like the zuhd of Awliyâ ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ’, whereas the zuhd of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ was like the zuhd of our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. The same difference applied to their wara’.[72] It is unanimously stated in various books of history that the zuhd of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ ran counter to the order of his caliphate, whereas the zuhd held by the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ catered to the order of their caliphate. Our second definiton is as follows: Zuhd means not to do the desires of one’s nafs, even if they are things permitted by Islam. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ caused considerable bloodshed in his efforts to become Khalîfa. What he did was his right, and it was something permitted by Islam. By contrast, the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ expressed their willingness to waive their rights to caliphate, which was a self-abnegation that their zuhd required. The Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ always humbled themselves before deeply learned people as well as before those who had a right to caliphate. If ‘zuhd’ should be construed as ‘doing with a bare existence,’ Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ cannot be said to have been ahead of the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ in this respect. Muhammad bin Kâ’b-i-Qurâzî is quoted as having reported as follows in Imâm Ahmad’s ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ book: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ said, “In the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ there were times when I tied a stone on my stomach in order to endure hunger. And now the zakât of my property amounts to four thousand gold coins.”

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was both kâmil[73] and mukammil.[74] Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “No one dies before having consumed (all) his (or her) rizq. Yet, look for good places to earn your rizq!”[75]

So far, we have explained the superiority of the Shaikhayn, resting our argument on narrative and mental proofs. Henceforth we shall try to eliminate the opinionated prejudices. We shall not do so by confuting the groups of Imâmiyya and Zaydiyya. They can be confuted with special methods, which do not even require the support of âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. There are three groups of opinions in this matter, correct and incorrect ones alike. Nasîr-i-Tûsî is responsible for the misconceptions.

Nasîr-ud-dîn Tûsî alleges in his book Tajrîd that Hadrat Alî was superior to the Shaikhayn. He writes about Hadrat Alî’s heroic accomplishments during the Holy Wars and the sufferings he endured in his endeavours to serve the Messenger of Allah. He says that his dazzling achievements in the Holy Wars of Badr, Uhud, Ahzâb [Trench], Haybar and Hunayn outshone those of all the other Sahâbîs. He says, “From him do all teachings come to scholars. This is a fact which he also stated. The phrase “Wa enfusenâ” in the âyat of Mubâhala is an indication of his great honour. He was extremely generous. After the Messenger of Allah, he was the most devoted zâhid of all people. Also, he was the most pious worshipper. He was the most profoundly learned and the most honourable. He was the earliest Believer. He was the most eloquent in his speech. He had the most correct ra’y (ijtihâd) and kashf (finding facts by way of inspiration). He made the most ardent endeavours for the enactment and practising of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commandments. He was the most accurate memorizer of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He would state unknown facts, and his invocations would be accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ). Myriads of karâmats (miracles) were witnessed on him. He was Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ immediate relative and next-worldly brother. It was made wâjib (incumbent) upon each and every Muslim to love him and to help him. It was declared that he was comparable to prophets. The event of ‘fowl’ indicates that his honour was very high. His closeness (to the Messenger of Allah) was identical with Hârûn’s (Aaron’s) closeness to Mûsâ (Moses). That he would become Khalîfa was declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf which was uttered at a place called Ghadîr. He did not live a moment as an unbeliever. He rendered many services to Islam. He was perfect both spiritually and physically.”

Answer: Fadl-i-juz’î, i.e. superiority in some considerations, can not be generalized into Fadl-i-kullî, which means superiority in all respects. Aspects whereby a person may be comparable to prophets vary. They should not be mistaken for one another. Superiority in presidency, i.e. that which makes one succeed the Prophet as his Khalîfa, ought to be differentiated from other sorts of superiority.

Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the third âyat of Mâida sûra: “... This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, ...” (5-3)

Therefore, the Prophet is the only criterion (whereby to assess someone) in religious matters as well as in statesmanship. Allâhu ta’âlâ bestowed most of His blessings upon His beloved Prophet as he was alive and promised him that He would complete them later, creating the remaining few blessings, afterwards, by the hands of some Sahâbîs. Those Sahâbîs were distinguished with the honour of similarity to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ owing to their work supplementary to the Prophet’s duty. The Sahâba differ in their similarity to Rasûlullah in this respect. The Shaikhayn were the most similar ones. For a better elucidation of this matter, the arguments in the book Tajrîd will be written one by one, (in numbered questions,) and each one of them will be given a separate answer:

Question 1: Hadrat Alî performed many acts of jihâd for the sake of Islam. Did anyone equal him in heroism?

Answer 1: Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ heroisms in Holy Wars were owing to Rasûlullah’s support. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave the same support to the Shaikhayn as well. His support to Hadrat Alî during the time intervening between the Hijrat and his demise was more (than his support to the others). And his support before the Hijrat and after his decease tended towards the Shaikhayn. As for their similarity in the duties of prophethood; the Shaikhayn defy comparison in that.

Question 2: The Sahâba would mostly learn matters by asking Hadrat Alî. Would this not be symptomatic of his superiority?

Answer 2: Hadrat ’Umar also had been blessed with the Glad Tidings commending his profound knowledge. According to a narration reported in Tirmuzî, Hadrat Alî burned some people for having abandoned Islam. When Abdullah ibn Abbâs heard about that, he made the following remarks: I would have killed them (in another way) rather than by burning. For, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ commanded: “Kill anyone who abandons Islam!” At another time he commanded: “Do not inflict the same torment as Allâhu ta’âlâ will inflict (in Hell)!” When Hadrat Alî was reported about those remarks, he acknowledged that Abdullah ibn Abbâs was right. Muslim and other books contain such reports indicating that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was not impeccable and that he did make mistakes.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ commended not only Hadrat Alî but also most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. He said about the Shaikhayn: “After me, pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar!” Another widely known hadîth-i-sherîf about them is: “Abû Bakr and ’Umar are the highest men of Paradise.” The hadîth-i-sherîf, “Shaytân will run away from the way as ’Umar passes by,” as well as the blessed Prophet’s interpreting his dream of a shirt and his dream of milk as knowledge are Glad Tidings concerning Hadrat ’Umar. ’Ubayy bin Kâ’b was praised in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Among you the best reader (or reciter) of the Qur’ân al-kerîm is ’Ubayy bin Ka’b.” The following are some of the hadîth-i-sherîfs commending the special attributes possessed by various Sahâbîs: “I am pleased with any person with whom ibn Umm-i-’Abd is pleased.” “Among you, Mu’âz is the most aware of halâl and harâm!” “There is a trustworthy person among every ummat. The (most) trustworthy person of this Ummat (Muslims) is Abû ’Ubayda.” “Every prophet has a Hawârî (Apostle). My Hawârî is Zubayr.” “Learn one-fourth of knowledge from Âisha!” The highest ones of the commendations quoted above are the ones commending (the Shaikhayn) as the ones to be paid homage to and as the highest men of Paradise. It would take only some fair reasoning to acknowledge this fact. Indeed, Hadrat Alî’s remark, “I am better as your counsellor [vizier] than I am as your amîr (president),” was intended to express this fact.

The teachings coming to scholars are not only from him but also from the Shaikhayn. The Islamic scholars are the scholars in the Islamic sciences such as Qirâat, Fiqh, Hadîth, Tafsîr, Usûl, Tasawwuf, Kalâm, and Lisân. Seven scholars in the Science of Qirâat are very well-known. The teachings acquired and possessed by all those scholars stem from the copy of the Qur’ân al-kerîm written by a committee under Hadrat ’Uthmân. And the Qur’ân al-kerîm, in turn, was compiled by the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. The compiled copies were carried to all the Muslim lands by the scholars sent by Hadrat ’Umar. Only two of the narrations came from Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. Of the scholars of Fiqh, the leaders of the three Madhhabs, Hanafî, Shâfi’î and Mâlikî, owe their knowledge to the teachings of ijmâ’ (consensus of the Sahâba) under Hadrat ’Umar’s authority. Their basic books contain very few narrations coming from Hadrat Alî. As for the scholars of Hadîth; most of the hadîth-i-sherîfs they quoted traced back to the following Sahâbîs as their original source of narration: Abû Hurayra and Abdullah ibn ’Umar and Âisha and Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd and Abdullah bin Abbâs and Enes bin Mâlik and Abû Sa’îd-i-Hudrî and Jâbir bin Abdullah ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’. And most of those blessed people reported their narrations on the authority of the Shaikhayn. The scholars of Medîna and Damascus and Yemen and Egypt reported few narrations on the authority of Hadrat Alî. The only school of scholars who reported an appreciable number of narrations on the authority of Hadrat Alî was that of the scholars of Kûfa; but then again those people are rather too arcane for eligibility as sources of religious teachings.

The science of Usûl was founded by Imâm Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’. The basic teachings of that science coming by way of the Book (Qur’ân al-kerîm), the Sunnat (hadîth-i-sherîfs), the Ijmâ’ (concensus of the Sahâba) and the Qiyâs (ijtihâd of the scholars who have attained the grade ijtihâd) traced back to the Shaikhayn (as their original narrators). Afterwards, the leader of each Madhhab established usûls (methods) to be employed within his Madhhab. Those usûls, by contrast, have nothing to do with the words of the Sahâba.

The basis for the knowledge of the scholars of Kalâm is (the Sunnî credo, which consists of the credal tenets held and preached by the scholars called) the Ahl as-Sunnat wa-l-jamâ’at. Their teachings also come from the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. The later supplementary accretions have nothing to do with the words of the Sahâba.

’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was the founder of the science of Tafsîr.

As for the science of Tasawwuf; the heart’s purification by way of sohbat (togetherness, company) is a (natural but systematic) process established by the Shaikhayn. Furthermore, the report stating that “Hasan-i-Basrî received fayz from Hadrat Alî and put on the blessed cloak” is negated by some (scholars).

It was permissible for Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ to tell about his superiorities. A great person has the freedom to state his own superior merits so that others will receive fayz from him. Hadrat Alî said in one of his khutbas: “Ask me whatsoever you would like to know on the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Wallahî (I swear in the name of Allah), that I know whether an âyat was revealed at night or in the daytime, up hill or down dale.” The Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, however, had a superb disposition to modesty. The following well-known episode is a typical example: One day Abû Bakr as-Siddîq ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ saw a bird on a branch and said, “So lucky for you, O you, bird! You perch on branches at will. You eat the fruits you like. You will not be called to account on the Judgement Day, nor will you be liable to torment. I wish I were a bird like you.” And Hadrat ’Umar’s words expressing his wish to have been created as a handful of soil are quoted in books. The Awliyâ who enjoy closeness to Allâhu ta’âlâ display varying states and manners. For instance, Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ was mostly in a jovial mood, whereas Yahyâ (John) ‘alaihis-salâm’ displayed a fearful and pensive appearance. When some people said to Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, “O you, the Khalîfa of Allah,” he replied, “I am the Khalîfa of the Messenger of Allah, and I am happy with it.”

Question 3: Isn’t the âyat-i-kerîma, “Wa enfusenâ,” an indication of the superiority of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’?

Answer 3: According to the reports in the books of tafsîr, the âyat-i-kerîma is called the âyat of mubâhala. Mubâhala[76] was traditional in Arabia, and both parties would have their children and their relations with them, as it was customary to do so. Therefore, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ followed the custom and convened his children and relations. That âyat-i-kerîma is an indication of the honour which Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had owing to his relationship (to the Messenger of Allah). We all believe in the greatness of that honour. Yet that honour does not indicate Fadl-i-kullî, i.e. superiority in all respects. Likewise, hadîths like, “You are from me, and I am from you,” are indicative of the honour of kinship. As a matter of fact, hadîths of that sort were said to Hadrat Abbâs and to Durra, who was Abû Lahab’s daughter. Such statements indicate superiority in one respect, which is termed Fadl-i-juz’î, rather than that which is in every respect. They are like the statement, “I have seen a lion in the public bath,” which means, “I have seen someone as powerful as a lion.” A person who says so has not seen someone who has a mane and paws like those of a lion.

Question 4: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was very generous. An âyat-i-kerîma praises him for that superiority.

Answer 4: That Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was utterly generous is an absolute fact. And he had many another superior merit as well. We all believe that Hadrat Alî did have all those merits and he was superior to most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. What we have been trying to explain, however, is that the Shaikhayn were superior to him. There are two kinds of generosity. One of them is liberality in dispensing one’s own property to needy people. The second one is the even-handedness of the people in charge of the Islamic State’s treasury called Bayt-ul-mâl in giving the allowances (of the people specified by Islam’s social code). In both the kinds of generosity were the Shaikhayn superior par excellence. The profusion of the property which Hadrat Abû Bakr dispensed for the sake of the Messenger of Allah both before and after the Hijrat is a common report of all books of Siyer. When he dispensed ten thousand gold coins for the sake of Allah one night, ten more thousand the following day, ten more thousand in private, and ten more thousand in public, the thirty-sixth âyat of Nisâ was revealed and he was commended and praised by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “Of all my Sahâba, Abû Bakr has been the most helpful to me both with respect to sohbat and in property.”

He gave all his property for the Holy War of Tabuk. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ also dispensed a great amount of property in the way of Allah. He gave half of his property for the Holy War of Tabuk. There is not a single narration reporting that Hadrat Alî dispensed an equal amount of property. He was in Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ care. Nor did he have any property after the Hijrat. The Shaikh-ayn would dispense the entire treasury income to the people during their caliphates, assigning for themselves a stipend that would suffice them only to make a living. The amount which Hadrat Alî dispensed to the people during his caliphate was not even one-thousandth the amount they had dispensed. A widely-known dramatic episode is told about ’Uqayl, (one of Hadrat Alî’s brothers,) who blamed Hadrat Alî for the pecuniary difficulties he was undergoing and abandoned his brother, joining Mu’âwiya’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ army.

Answer 5: True. That Hadrat Alî had very much zuhd[77] is a bare fact. He was more zâhid than most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. ‘Zuhd’ means ‘not to be enamoured of worldly things’. Its highest degree is not to wish for caliphate. That the Shaikhayn were willing to relinquish their caliphate is a truth reported unanimously by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Hadrat Alî, in contrast, did struggle for caliphate. Those who invoke the altruistic motive that his struggle (for becoming Khalîfa) was intended to serve Islam and Muslims should not blame the Shaikhayn for having assumed office (as Khalîfa). The difference is that the Shaikhayn did not try to become Khalîfa, whereas Hadrat Alî did his utmost to assume office. Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs reports that Hadrat ’Umar’s zuhd was immaculate. There are innumerable narrations reporting the zuhd and contentment of the Shaikhayn. The Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was the highest paragon of zuhd. The Shaikhayn were his perfect likenesses during their caliphates. They did everything to establish and to promulgate the commandments of Allâhu ta’âlâ. This fact was also stated by Hadrat Alî, who said, “Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ was ahead of us all. Abû Bakr followed his example perfectly. With ’Umar they made a trio of perfection. Thereafter began the degenerations and malpractices foreordained by Allâhu ta’âlâ.”

It is an established fact that Hadrat Alî was ahead of most of the Sahâba owing to his profound dedication in worship. However, he cannot be said to have been ahead of the Shaikhayn, too ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’.

Question 6: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had îmân, (became a Believer,) before anyone else did. Can there be another honour higher than that?

Answer 6: According to some scholars, Hadrat Alî was the earliest Believer. There are other scholars, however, who argue that Hadrat Abû Bakr was the earliest conversion to Islam. On the other hand, the majority of scholars are unanimous in that Hadrat Khadîja preceded them both in embracing Islam. If precedence in time of embracing Islam were the mere valid criterion of superiority, Hadrat Khadîja and Zayd would necessarily have been the highest Sahâbîs. Precedence in time of embracing Islam may be considered as a superiority only in that it causes others also to embrace Islam. And that assumption has cogency only if the person concerned is an adult, or at least has reached the age of puberty. Hadrat Alî was a child when he became a Believer. He kept his belief as a secret, even from his own father. The superiority of embracing IsÊlam and thereby causing others to embrace Islam belonged singularly to Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’.

Question 7: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was the most eloquent of all the Sahâba.

Answer 7: It is axiomatic that Hadrat Alî was superior to most of the Sahâba in eloquence, rhetoric and oratory. Yet he cannot be said to have been superior to the Shaikhayn as well. In fact, (speeches called) khutbas which some notable Sahâbîs quote from the Shaikhayn are nonpareil masterpieces of rhetoric. Hadrat Abû Bakr’s perfectly eloquent eulogies are written in the history of Ibn Is-haq. However, eloquence has nothing to do with caliphate. It is true that eloquence is necessary in the communication and propagation of Islam. The Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ communicated all the Islamic facts eloquently, eliminating all the grounds for difference. On the other hand, none of the differences that appeared in the time of Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ was provided with a solution. That a statement made by Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ caused a Sahâbî to reconsider his own ijtihâd could at the most be a speculative event which was never witnessed to happen.

Question 8: Didn’t Hadrat Alî have the most correct ra’y (ijtihâd) and kashf (inspiration)?

Answer 8: Hadrat Alî’s strict accuracy in ijtihâd was incontestable, and it was crowned by his breathtaking speed in inferring decisions from âyats and hadîths and answering people’s questions. As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stressed this fact, stating, “Alî is ahead of you all in reaching conclusions.” One day Hadrat ’Umar was commending the Ashâb-i-kirâm for their superior merits, and he observed, “Alî is superior to us all in reaching conclusions.” However, it would be unfair to present that superiority as a prerogative to give him the lead to caliphate before the Shaikhayn. As a matter of fact, when Hadrat Abû Bakr assumed office as Khalîfa, all the decisions he made and the measures he took to dissuade the Arabs from apostasy proved to be appropriate. And, on the other hand, all the strategies Hadrat ’Umar planned and ordered in his jihâd against Iran and Byzantium led the Arabs to victory. By contrast, all the initiatives Hadrat Alî exercised during his caliphate proved to be deleterious. When he consulted with other people, he would mostly dislike their suggestions. Abdullah ibn Abbâs states this fact clearly. The words which Hadrat Hasan said to his father Hadrat Alî after the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân are written in books. Correctness of a ra’y or ijtihâd is evaluated in accordance to the benefits it yields. Only the Shaikhayn’s ra’y and ijtihâd proved to be correct in this sense.

Question 9: Didn’t Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ struggle more than anyone else for the execution of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commandments?

Answer 9: It is doubtless that the Shaikhayn as well as Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ struggled to the best of their abilities for the realization of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commandments and for the promulgation of Islam. However, clarification of matters which are not explained clearly in âyats and hadîths is not susceptible of haste; a consensus reached after a process of consultations brings healthier results, whereas haste causes errors. Especially in matters of chastisement (which are called) hadd (in Islam’s penal code), not to follow this rule gives birth to fitna. The Shaikhayn observed this sunnat of the Messenger of Allah in all their decrees. This fact is stated in perfect clarity by ’Umar bin ’Abd-ul ’azîz. Hadrat Alî did not do so. In fact, during a conversation he had with Mughîra bin Shu’ba one night, he said, “When there is fear of difference and fitna, I will immediately inflict (the chastisement termed) rajm on a fornicator.” Thereupon the latter ran away and joined Hadrat Mu’âwiya. Hadrat Alî’s haste can be said to have been one of the marginal causes of the turmoil that blighted Hadrat Alî’s era as Khalîfa. Whereas Hadrat Alî’s nature was prone to haste and excitement, the Shaikhayn enjoyed calmer dispositions such as sobriety, composure and far-sightedness. Abdullah ibn Abbâs explained this difference as follows: “Hadrat ’Umar would foresee the future events and act slowly. Hadrat Alî would take action immediately, confident of success. However, failure was a more recurrent result.”

Question 10: Wasn’t Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ the best memorizer of the Qur’ân al-kerîm?

Answer 10: The honour of having memorized the Qur’ân al-kerîm is not peculiar to Hadrat Alî alone. The Shaikhayn and (Hadrat ’Uthmân) Zin-nûrayn and Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd and ’Ubayy bin Kâ’b ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ also had memorized the entire Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Shaikhayn would conduct the Friday prayers and the five daily prayers during their caliphate. They would recite long sûras such as Baqara and Yûsuf as they conducted morning prayers. Hadrat Alî and the other people who had memorized the entire Qur’ân al-kerîm, (i.e. the hâfizes,) were among the jamâ’at. Those people were never heard to mention any mistakes in the recitations. Those prayers incidentally served as aural exercises whereby the memorizers were drilled in their memorizations.

Question 11: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ would inform about the unknown, and whatever he prayed for would be accepted (by Allâhu ta’âlâ).

Answer 11: The Shaikhayn as well as Hadrat Alî frequently informed about the unknown, and their prayers also were mostly accepted. These kerâmats of the Shaikhayn reached us through sahîh (true, authentic) narrations. That there were liars among the narrators of Hadrat Alî’s kerâmats (miracles) was acknowledged by Hadrat Alî himself as well. In fact, he dismissed a number of them from his presence. Nor was it a rare event that those liars informed against one another. According to a report in Bukhârî, when the Shaikhayn invoked a blessing on a certain amount of food prepared to be eaten, it would not decrease when people ate from it. According to another report, again, in Bukhârî, when Hadrat ’Umar said, “I think...,” to express his opinion about matters open to conjecture, things turned out exactly as he had thought. According to a widely-known episode, Hadrat ’Umar was delivering a (speech called) khutba in Medîna, when all of a sudden he, (in a miraculous way,) saw his own army fighting under Sâriyya’s command in Irân, and called to Sâriyya, “Turn your attention towards the mountain!” It is written in Imâm Ahmad’s book Musnad that Hadrat ’Umar foretold his death several days before his martyrdom. The dreams which Hadrat Abû Bakr had before his embracing Islam as well as those which he had shortly before his death are related in authentic books. Another widespread report relates how the Nile converted its current in obedience to a letter written by Hadrat ’Umar. Many another similar kerâmat is reported. However, their high values as the Sahâba outweighed their grades as Awliyâ. That sparsity of kerâmât is essential in the rank of caliphate is explained within the narration of Suleymân’s (Solomon’s) ‘alaihis-salâm’ mu’jizât in the book Fusus.

Question 12: Hadrat Alî was Rasûlullah’s immediate relative and his next-worldly brother. Can there be an honour higher than that?

Answer 12: True. Hadrat Alî was Rasûlullah’s very near kin. No one denies that. The Shaikhayn also were from the Qoureish tribe, and their daughters enjoyed the honour of being Rasûlullah’s wives. Yet those closenesses are not apropos of superiority. The âyat-i-kerîma dictating a gradation of closeness in kinship was revealed for the purpose of solving matters of inheritance. It has nothing to do with matters such as caliphate, judgeship and leadership. If caliphate depended on kinship, Hadrat Abbâs would have had precedence over Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ in the caliphate election. Practices traditional in dictatorial or monarchical systems are of no documentary value as examples to be followed. It was one of the teachings of the Torah as well that caliphate should not be considered as a patrimony, but as a responsibility requiring certain qualifications. Allâhu ta’âlâ appointed Yûshâ (Joshua) ‘alaihis-salâm’, and not one of the sons of Hârûn (Aaron) ‘alaihis-salâm’, as a Prophet to succeed Mûsâ (Moses) ‘alaihis-salâm’. Islam’s instruction in this respect was that the Khalîfa be elected from among the Qoureish tribe. No mention was made, however, as to the name of the clan. The nominees would first of all have to fulfill the nine basic conditions for caliphate, in addition to being from the Qoureish tribe. The normal procedure for the assumption of caliphate was an election based on unanimity, a sine qua non which would perforce lapse in case the former Khalîfa had nominated a certain person to succeed him or one of the candidates had pulled off a coup d’etat. The Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ possessed the conditions for caliphate, and they were elected by a unanimous vote.

Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ said, “He is my brother and an intimate friend,” about Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. And he said to ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’: “Brother, do pray for me!” Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was the only person blessed with the epithet “next-worldly brother,” (by the Prophet). Yet that epithet had nothing to do with caliphate. The blessed Prophet was making his Sahâba brothers to one another, when Hadrat Alî came, weeping. “You have made your Sahâba one another’s brother. But you have not made me anyone’s brother,” were the words he said to express his sorrow. His sadness touched the Messenger of Allah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, so he said, compassionately, “You are my brother in this world and the next!” Upon the death of Es’ad bin Zerâra, the chief of Benî Najjâr, spokesman from the tribe paid a visit to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and requested that he appoint a new chief for them. The blessed Prophet stated, “You are my brothers! Let me be your chief!” Brotherhood mentioned in this hadîth-i-sherîf does not indicate at all that those people were superior to the Shaikhayn.

Question 13: It is commanded in the twenty-third âyat of Shûrâ sûra that every Muslim should love Hadrat Alî.

Answer 13: The meaning of the âyat-i-kerîma is: “... No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin (to me). ...” So is the case with the following hadîth-i-sherîfs: “Love of Alî is a symptom of îmân. Enmity against him is symptomatic of hypocrisy.” “I will fight anyone who fights you. And I will make peace with one who makes peace with you.” Yes, it is wâjib (incumbent) upon every Muslim to love and respect the Ahl-i-Bayt and to show deference to the blessed wives of the Messenger of Allah. Hadrat Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ also is included in that honourable group. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “He who hurts my paternal uncle will have hurt me (by doing so).” Another hadîth-i-sherîf commends all the Ashâb-i-kirâm as follows: “He who loves my Sahâba does so because he loves me. He who is inimical towards my Sahâba is so because he is my enemy. He who hurts them will have hurt me (by doing so). And to hurt me means to hurt Allâhu ta’âlâ.”

Question 14: It is wâjib (incumbent) upon every Muslim to support Hadrat Alî. The Tahrîm sûra is an evidence for this fact.

Answer 14: Yes, the fourth âyat of Tahrîm sûra purports, “... and (every) righteous one among Believers – and furthermore, the angels – will back him up.” (66-4) However, the person that the âyat-i-kerîma purports will be backed up by righteous Believers is the Messenger of Allah, not Hadrat Alî. Moreover, that the expression ‘(every) righteous one among Believers’ in the âyat-i-kerîma implies Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar, is acknowledged unanimously by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Indeed, this âyat-i-kerîma is a clear indication of the honour which Allâhu ta’âlâ has conferred on the Shaikhayn.

Question 15: Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated that Hadrat Alî was comparable to prophets.

Answer 15: It was not only Hadrat Alî that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ compared to prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’. Other Sahâbîs also were blessed with the same commendation. Each of the so-called commendations was intended to point out a common merit which the Sahâbî concerned shared with the prophet to whom he was compared. For instance, he compared the zuhd of Abû Zer (Ghifârî) to that of Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’; the mercy of Abû Bakr to that of Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; the austerity of Hadrat ’Umar to that of Nûh (Noah) ‘alaihis-salâm’; and the pulchritudinous and clear diction of Abû Mûsa’l Ash’arî to that of Dâwûd (David) ‘alaihis-salâm’.

Question 16: Doesn’t the event of roast fowl indicate that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ very much?

Answer 16: The Messenger of Allah had a roast fowl with him. He invoked, “Yâ Rabbî! Send one of Thine slaves whom Thou lovest so that we eat this fowl together!” Hadrat Alî came over. They ate it together. This is certainly a true narration. That Hadrat Alî is one of the beloved slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ is an incontrovertible fact. But the Glad Tidings was not peculiar to him. Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar also were given similar Glad Tidings. The following hadîth-i-sherîfs are widely known: “Allâhu ta’âlâ will manifest Himself to Abû Bakr in private, whereas others will be altogether as they enjoy the manifestation (tajallî) of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” “The sun has not risen over someone more auspicious than ’Umar.”

Question 17: Doesn’t the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Your position with me is identical with Hârûn’s (Aaron’s) position with Mûsâ (Moses),” imply that he must be Khalîfa (immediately after the Prophet’s decease)?

Answer 17: The book Tajrîd quotes the hadîth-i-sherîf “With me you are like Hârûn with Dâwûd! Only, there is no prophet after me,” which the blessed Prophet uttered during the Holy War of Tabuk, as a proof to adduce to its argument. The expression, “... after me,” should be construed as, “... other than me.”

An identical statement takes place in the twenty-third âyat of the Jâthiya sûra of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. For, Hârûn ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not outlive Mûsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’. His death was earlier.

This hadîth-i-sherîf was uttered as the blessed Prophet appointed Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ his substitute in Medîna previous to his departure for the Holy War of Tabuk. Likewise, Hadrat Mûsâ had appointed Hârûn ‘alaihis-salâm’ his representative during his excursion to Mount Sinai (Tûr). This hadîth-i-sherîf signifies a special honour and superiority for Hadrat Alî. Yet it does not show that he was superior to the Shaikhayn.

Question 18: Didn’t the hadîth-i-sherîf uttered at (a place called) Ghadîr-i-Hum appoint Hadrat Alî as Rasûlullah’s Khalîfa?

Answer 18: As for the event of Ghadîr-i-Hum; Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had appointed Hadrat Alî governor of Yemen. Hadrat Alî utilized a jâriya who belonged to the Bayt-ul-mâl. That behaviour of his became the topic of a rumour which gradually spread, reaching the blessed ears of the Messenger of Allah. To prevent the fitna, the blessed Prophet commanded that Hadrat Alî be loved, stating, “If I am mawlâ for a person, Alî, too, be mawlâ for him,” which meant, “He who loves me ought to love Alî, too.” The word ‘mawlâ’ takes place in many âyats of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It has been interpreted as ‘person who is beloved’. That hadîth-i-sherîf is similar to the hadîth-i-sherîf, “He who believes in Allah should be kind to his guest!” That hadîth-i-sherîf does not only concern Hadrat Alî. Another hadîth-i-sherîf contains the following invocation about Hadrat Hasan: “Yâ Rabbî! I love him. May Thou love him, too! And please do love also those who love him!” They were at a place called Ghadîr-i-Hum, somewhere between Mekka and Medîna, when Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ held Hadrat Alî by the hand and said, “If I am mawlâ for a person, Alî, too, be mawlâ for him! Yâ Rabbî, please do love anyone who loves him, and if anyone should hate him, may he incur Thine hatred!” Thereupon Hadrat ’Umar came near Hadrat Alî and said, “How lucky for you, O Alî! You are now beloved to all Believers.” Zayd bin Erqam is reported to have related the following event, in the book Muslim: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ delivered a khutba near a spring of water called Ghadîr-i-Hum. He stated, “I am a human after all. My life will come to an end one day. I leave the Book of Allah and my Ahl-i-Bayt for you. Hold fast to the path guided by the Qur’ân al-kerîm! Appreciate the value of my Ahl-i-Bayt!” The book Tirmuzî narrates the following event on the authority of Imrân bin Hasîn: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ sent us out for jihâd under the command of Hadrat Alî. Hadrat Alî took one of the jâriyas, who were called slaves, for himself. Four people reported this to the Messenger of Allah. Extremely hurt, the Messenger of Allah stated, “What is it that prompts you to work against Alî? Alî is from me, and I am from him. After me, Alî is the walî of every Believer.” These hadîth-i-sherîfs command to love the Ahl-i-Bayt. Mawlâ and walî are synonymous and they mean ‘person who is loved’. Zayd bin Erqam is reported, in Tirmuzî, as having related: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “I leave two things for you. If you adhere to them you will remain in the right path after me. One of them is greater than the other. It is the Book of Allah. The second one is my Ahl-i-Bayt. These two will never part from each other until they meet me by the Pond (the waterside, called Kawthar, in Paradise)!” The phrase, “These two will never part from each other,” means, “A person who adheres to the Qur’ân al-kerîm ought to love the Ahl-i-Bayt.” To adhere to the Ahl-i-Bayt means to love them. As it is something generating thawâb (reward, blessing in the Hereafter) to obey the Qur’ân al-kerîm, it is, likewise, something which causes thawâb to love the Ahl-i-Bayt. None of the hadîth-i-sherîfs quoted so far, however, imply that Alî was to be the (first) Khalîfa, the (first) Imâm. It is utterly wrong and abominably unfair to invoke these hadîth-i-sherîfs in maligning the Ahl-i-Sunnat and thereby sowing discord among Muslims. May Jenâb-i-Haqq bless us all with love of the Ahl-i-Bayt and of all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’! Âmîn!

Question 19: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ did not live in disbelief even for a moment before he became a Believer.

Answer 19: If it were a superiority not to have been a disbeliever before embracing Islam, all the later Muslims would necessarily be superior to the Ashâb-i-kirâm. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “Once a person has become a Believer, all his sins previous to his conversion will be forgiven.”

Answer 20: That most of the services to Islam were rendered by the Shaikhayn is as clear as the sun. For, it was the Shaikhayn who compiled the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It was the Shaikhayn who established the method of narration, divided the religious teachings into scientific branches, conquered Arabia, and made the Byzantine and Iranian lands homes of Islam. Most of the Muslims on the earth are in one of the three Madhhabs, namely Mâlikî, Hanafî, and Shâfi’î. And the basic teachings of these three Madhhabs are on matters which Hadrat ’Umar obtained by way of ijmâ’ (consensus of the Sahâba). These Madhhabs contain little information coming from Hadrat Alî. No country of disbelievers was conquered in the time of Hadrat Alî. Nor were unity and peace established among Muslims. The benefits which this Ummat (Muslims) attained owing to the Shaikhayn are much more than the benefits which they owe to Hadrat Alî. The thawâb which pioneers of a religiously beneficial area will earn increases by the multiplication of the number of the people who utilize that area by the amount of thawâb which each of them will earn. All the Muslims called Ahl as-Sunnat are the followers of the path guided by the Shaikhayn. And most of the Muslims on the earth belong to this Sunnî group. Three aberrant groups came out from Hadrat Alî’s progeny. Activities engaged in by all three groups were destructive of Islam. Had it not been for the infinite compassion of Allâhu ta’âlâ, they would have annihilated Islam. One of them was the group called Imâmiyya. According to that group, the compilers of the Qur’ân al-kerîm were not dependable people. For, people in the Imâmiyya group deny the (authenticity of the) Ashâb-i-kirâm and the well-known seven imâms (, i.e. scholars, leaders,) of (the Islamic science called) Qirâat. On the other hand, not a single report comes from the Twelve Imâms, who are the only dependable sources according to the Imâmiyya group. And, since those people do not report any Marfû’ hadîths,[78] either, they do not have a book of hadîths to depend on. Likewise, the Zaydiyya group also reject most of the religious teachings derived from hadîth-i-sherîfs. Those people are responsible for the bloody events of discord that stain the annals of history. The third group, Ismâ’îliyya, are the worst. They are Islam’s enemies in every sense of the word. All the multitudinous heresies that have been ravaging the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims were fabricated by those three groups. Their iniquities could by no means mar Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ honour. By the same token, Hadrat Mu’âwiya ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ could not be blamed for the misdeeds of Yazîd or of the Umayyad governors. Those people are responsible for their own cruelties and wrongdoings. It is equally true, however, that not an iota of thawâb reaches Hadrat Alî via those people. On the other hand, the Shaikhayn receive myriads of blessings daily, owing to the blessings which the Sunnî Muslims earn (on account of the pious deeds and correct practices they have been doing), and this reproduction of blessings will keep on increasing till the end of the world.

Question 21: Hadrat Alî was perfect both physically and spiritually. Therefore he is superior to the Shaikhayn.

Answer 21: Before discussing the matter of sheer physical and spiritual superiority, we have considered it relevant to quote a passage from Sharh Mawâqif and then give an all-in-all answer. It is stated as follows in Mawâqif: “Hadrat Alî was a treasure of high merits which were elements of superiorty. He was the most knowledgeable one of the Sahâba. He grew up under the edification of the Messenger of Allah. He became the blessed Prophet’s son-in-law. He was highly intelligent. From the Messenger of Allah he learned such profound facts as others could not learn. As for Hadrat Abû Bakr; he was rather of age, [i.e. he was thirty-eight years old,] when he embraced Islam. He would see the Messenger of Allah once daily. The zuhd of Hadrat Alî is not unknown to anyone. He was very kind and generous, too. So much so that he was performing namâz one day when he dispensed his ring as alms. Thereupon an âyat-i-kerîma was revealed to laud him. At another time, it was immediately after sunset and he was about to break his fast which he had been performing as a votive offering, when a poor man came to the door. He gave all the food to the poor man. (The event took place three times running. On the first evening, it was a poor man who came to the door, asking for something to eat. The following evening, as Hadrat Alî, –and four other people; namely, Hadrat Fâtima, Hadrat Hasan, Hadrat Husayn, and Fidda, who was a jâriya, who had fasted all day long in fulfilment of a vow which they had made for the healing of Hadrat Hasan and Husayn from a fatal illness–, was about to break his fast, –and the others their fast–, when an orphan came to the door asking for something to eat. They gave all the food to the orphan. The same event took place the following evening, and the person at the door, a slave this time, was given the entire food. This event is told in detail in the ninth episode about Hadrat Alî in the book Manâqib-i-chihâr yâr-i-ghuzîn, by Sayyid Ayyûb bin Siddîq.) Thereupon another âyat-i-kerîma was revealed to commend their self-abnegation. Hadrat Alî was ahead of all others on account of the heroism and gallantry he displayed in the Holy Wars. So tremendously did he prove his mettle in the Holy War of Hendek (Trench), that the blessed Prophet praised him in his hadîth-i-sherîf, “One blow which Alî deals with his sword is more valuable than the total amount of all the acts of worship performed by all human beings and genies.” Equally well-known are the praisals lavished on him for the undaunted prowess he demonstrated in the other Holy Wars, especially at Haybar. No less was the reputation that he acquired owing to his beautiful moral habits. He had great physical strength, too. He lifted the gate of the fortress, pulling it off its hinges. “I have broken this gate not by muscular strength, but by a special strength given by Allâhu ta’âlâ,” he said. Hadrat Alî was not only akin to the Messenger of Allah by way of lineage, but also related to him by marriage. Abbâs was Abdullah’s brother only by father, whereas Abû Tâlib, (i.e. Hadrat Alî’s father,) was Abdullah’s brother by both parents. Hadrat Alî was the husband of the highest of all women, (i.e. Hadrat Fâtima). He was the father of Hasan and Husayn, the highest of the young people of Paradise.”

Before forwarding our argument against the passage, we would like to acknowledge that Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ did have the merits cited, definitely. All Muslims ought to hold this belief and love him very much. However, assuming the office of caliphate requires other superiorities as well. Various occupations and arts require varying superiorities in which to excel others. Lineage and outward appearance are not among the criteria to satisfy in a championship of scholars. The superiority to be fulfilled for being a prophet’s khalîfa should be similar to the superiority with which prophets are specially endowed for the assumption of their prophetic duties. It is for this very reason that scholars, Awliyâ and other people who endeavour to promulgate Islam by way of Amr-i-ma’rûf and Nahy-i-munkar and Jihâd are more valuable than and superior to sportsmen, tradesmen and expert accountants, who are apparently more powerful. Likewise, being elected as Khalîfa requires a substantiated superiority to others in meeting the scientific, ethical and practical criteria upheld by the Messenger of Allah. In fact, of all these three sets of criteria, the practical ones outbalance the other two. Among the Ummat (Muslims), there may be some lucky peeople who obtain new pieces of information by way of inference [and research] or inspiration. Yet those pieces of information are not so valuable as the knowledge possessed by the Prophet. The prophetic knowledge is that which is practical in spreading knowledge and Islam, in deriving by way of inference the unclear principles concealed in them, in explicating those principles and culling the tenable ones from among a number of uncertain principles, and in providing a consensus (when necessary). Uppermost of all these practicalities is mastery in securing order, peace and comfort among the Ummat. A minute study of the times of the four Khalîfas will by no means reveal Hadrat Alî’s superiority to the Shaikhayn in the perpetuation of the prophetic teachings and deeds. Whereas Hadrat Alî’s knowledge made him superior in the speed of response, the Shaikhayn’s knowledge outweighed his in that they were patient and answered questions only after a fastidious study of the matters or, (when necessary,) after providing a consensus (of the Sahâba). Hadrat Alî had very much zuhd, and the Shaikhayn also had very much zuhd. The munificence of the Shaikhayn was several times better than the munificence of Hadrat Alî. Furthermore, his dispensing his ring as alms as he was performing namâz and his giving the food he was going to eat after breaking fast were not among the authentic narrations. Even if they were authentic, then again it is a bare fact that he was not superior to them, in the face of the multitude of the âyat-i-kerîmas commending them, especially on account of the acts of charity performed by Hadrat Abû Bakr. Whereas Hadrat Alî was superior in the strength of his fists, the Shaikhayn were superior in the fortitude they displayed in coping with the renegades and subduing the Iranian and Byzantine empires. In addition, the Shaikhayn were multiples of times superior in the beautiful moral finess they showed in the appeasement of the Ummat (Muslims) and in the settling of quarrels. Versus Hadrat Alî’s very close kinship, the Shaikhayn are closer to the Messenger of Allah in their graves, and so will they be at the place of Mahsher (the place where all people will gather for judgement), and also as they go to Paradise. Whereas Hadrat Alî had the honour of being Hadrat Fâtima’s spouse, Hadrat Abû Bakr was blessed with the honour of fatherhood of Hadrat Âisha, Rasûlullah’s blessed wife and also his companion in Paradise. The Qur’ân al-kerîm contains ten âyats lauding and praising Hadrat Âisha. One-fourth of the knowledge of Fiqh was learned from her. Likewise, Hadrat ’Umar’s daughter, Hadrat Hafsa, was Rasûlullah’s wife in the world, and so will she be in Paradise as well, and Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-salâm’ has praised her as a blessed woman who “has dedicated herself to performing namâz and fasting continually.” Although some of the descendants of Hadrat Alî were the best people of their times, there were also others who caused grave harm to Islam. The aberrant groups called Ismâ’îliyya, Zaydiyya and Imâmiyya, for instance, owed their existences to his descendants. History books give detailed accounts of the bloody ventures which some of his descendants –whose number is hardly below one hundred– undertook and misled an untold number of Muslims with the help of the hordes of supporters that crowded around them. Such demolishers of Islam were not seen among the descendants of the Shaikhayn. People who descended from them, especially Abdullah bin ’Umar, Hadrat Âisha, Sâlim, Qâsim, Ubaydullah bin ’Umar ’Umarî, and many others, were sources of guidance who led people to happiness. Men of Tasawwuf such as Shihâbuddîn Suhrawardî and Fakhruddîn Suhrawardî, who came after the Twelve Imâms, and book-owners like Fakhruddîn Râzî Waliyyuddîn were all people who attained guidance owing to the fayz they received from the descendants of the Shaikhayn. If a person’s being of Hashimite descent or having an abundant progeny were something conducive to his superiority, Hadrat Alî would –may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us against such a disastrous belief– necessarily be superior to the Messenger of Allah. If it should be argued that “Those superiorities apply among those who are below prophethood; they become null and void on the prophetic level,” then it should be admitted that they lose their validity also on levels where prophetic attributes are perpetuated although in similarity. True, they are effective with people below those levels. As a matter of fact, Hadrat Alî was superior to all the Sahâbîs who lived during his caliphate. This is the belief held by the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat. What we have written so far are answers to Nasîruddîn Tûsî’s book Tajrîd.

Question 22: Why should superiority be an indispensable criterion for assuming office as Khalîfa? We might as well put it that way: Superior as Hadrat Alî was, the unlearned people would have refused to pay homage to him because he had killed the fathers and friends of the Qoureishî people, because he had never shown remission in his invitation to Islam, and because he was hasty in his chastisements. Since Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ was a best psychiatrist, he may have preferred to appoint someone else for the office of caliphate.

Answer 22: Allâhu ta’âlâ sent prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawât-u-wa-t-taslîmât’ for the rectification of peoples and for the establishment of peace and welfare among them. It is therefore a prophet’s duty to choose a person who will represent his prophetic attributes best. If he chooses someone else, he will have misused his authority and committed an injustice. It is senseless to say that the Qoureishî people would have refused to pay homage to someone who had killed their fathers and friends. If it were sound reasoning, the Messenger of Allah would have preceded Hadrat Alî in the list of people rejected for the same reason. For, it was by his order that all the Sahâba, not only Hadrat Alî, had killed the Qoureishî people in the Holy Wars. The fact, however, was that those Qoureishîs who had embraced Islam loved the Messenger of Allah more than their own lives.

Question 23: Holding the Shaikhayn superior on the persuasion that deeds such as helping the Messenger of Allah and promulgating Islam and making jihâd in the Iranian and Byzantine lands as well as in Arabia and compiling the Qur’ân al-kerîm and conquering countries and supporting Muslims are prophetic attributes, exposes a predisposition wide open to various other arguments. For one thing, the most valuable Sunnî books such as Sharh Mawâqif and Sharh ’Aqâid hold that superiority depends on the abundance of thawâb (deeds that will be rewarded in the Hereafter). Isn’t the superiority defined above contradictory to the unanimous teaching of these books? Furthermore, isn’t the propounded definiton suggestive of the assumption that Hadrat Mu’âwiya and certain other commanders must be superior to Hadrat Alî on account of their conquests of lands of disbelievers? Our third antithesis would be that the so-called elements of superiority are kinds of attributes that are acquired afterwards. They are complementary to one’s congenital superiorities. In fact, it is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “Allâhu ta’âlâ promulgates this religion (Islam) also through someone who is a fâjir [disbeliever].” Another fact that should not escape our attention is that there were Prophets with only one believer each; which indicates that conquering various lands and promulgating the religion are not among the prophetic attributes. With the essential fact that prophets are all identical (in their prophetic duties), similarity to our Prophet cannot be presented as an exception to “prove the rule.” That means to say that similarity to our Prophet must be similarity in some other attributes! Furthermore, if the conquest of lands were indicative of superiority, Hadrat ’Umar would necessarily have been superior to Hadrat Abû Bakr. The services which Hadrat Alî rendered in the Holy Wars made during the time of our Prophet were more than those rendered by any of the others. The conquests and services that would be done after our Prophet, on the other hand, were not known during the first caliphate election. Then, why should it be taken for granted that Hadrat Abû Bakr was the most superior and that the first election was based on a consensus?

Answer 23: These speculations show that what we have said is not understood well. We have not said that superiority consists in promulgating the religion, making jihâd, capturing countries and compiling the Qur’ân al-kerîm only. These are a few of the components making up the superiority. These components can be divided into three groups. In the first group are the components of similarity in the prophetic attributes, which causes superiority in helping the Messenger of Allah and perpetuating the blessed Messenger’s duties after him. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat divided the duty among themselves. One group undertook the science dealing with hadîth-i-sherîfs, while another group spread the teachings of (the science called) Kalâm. When a statement is said to belong to the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat, it is the statement of a consensus reached unanimously by all the scholars of the Ahl as-Sunnat, including the second group of scholars. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat state unanimously that the Shaikhayn were (the most) superior. Jihâd is performed not only with the sword, but also with oral and written words as well as with one’s nafs. Hadrat Abû Bakr was superior in the second and third kinds of jihâd. He performed jihâd constantly for thirteen years in Mekka and for one year in Medîna before the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma about jihâd. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “If a prophet were to come after me, definitely ’Umar would be that prophet,” is a clear indication of the fact that the Shaikhayn did possess the prophetic attributes. A fâjir’s (disbeliever’s) serving Islam will certainly be of no use to him. Yet this fact can by no means be grounds for denying the high merits in performing Amr-i-ma’rûf and jihâd and the abundance of thawâb it will produce. And it is clearly stated in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs that the Shaikhayn were pious Muslims, not fâjirs. If a person denies this fact, he should doubt about his own îmân. Similarity to the Messenger of Allah can be in one of the following three ways: The first way is similarity in the rank of prophethood, which is peculiar to prophets alone. The second way is similarity in performing the prophetic duties. We have explained in detail in the previous pages that the Shaikhayn possessed this kind of similarity. The third way is similarity in performing the acts of worship. This similarity varies, depending on the time and the dispensation. Jihâd was not commanded in most of the earlier dispensations. Therefore, doing jihâd would not have been an act of worship, let alone a superior one, for the prophets of those dispensations. Our religion, by contrast, commanded jihâd and conquests. Accordingly, jihâd was one of the prophetic duties. The reasoning, “... then Hadrat ’Umar would necessarily have been superior to Hadrat Abû Bakr,” is quite maladroit in that it might be wickedly furthered into the nasty reasoning that “the Shaikhayn also would necessarily have been superior to the Messenger of Allah.” The Shaikhayn performed those acts of jihâd and conquest which the Messenger of Allah started and which he said would be completed. They offered their services to his jihâd after his decease exactly as they had done during his lifetime. Likewise, Hadrat ’Umar completed the (completion of) jihâd started by Hadrat Abû Bakr. That was what he meant when he said, “I am the Khalîfa of Abû Bakr.”

Question 24: Hadrat Alî was not present when the Messenger of Allah stated, “Let Abû Bakr conduct (the prayers of) namâz!” If he had been present, the Prophet’s order would have been, “Let Alî conduct namâz!” Or, perhaps, the so-called commandment was made in deference to Hadrat Abû Bakr’s old age. That the Shaikhayn are the highest people of Paradise and that Hadrat Abû Bakr will be the first Muslim to enter Paradise may be the case with the exception of Hadrat Alî. And why shouldn’t Hadrat Alî’s acknowledgement, “Abû Bakr is the highest man of this Ummat, and next after him is ’Umar,” have gone without saying that he himself was an exception? Indeed, being an extremely exalted person, Alî, like the Messenger of Allah, has a special high position quite beyond and above the other members of this Ummat.

Answer 24: It could not be for us to say that Hadrat Abû Bakr was the highest. It is a religious fact stated by Hadrat ’Umar and by Hadrat Alî and by Abû ’Ubayda and by Abdullah bin ibn Mes’ûd and by the notable Sahâbîs and by most of the Ansâr. Those were the blessed people who elected him Khalîfa. Qays bin ’Ubâd relates: Hadrat Alî said to me: “Rasûlullah was ill (in bed) when prayer time came. The blessed Messenger ordered, ‘Tell Abû Bakr to conduct namâz!’ I thought this over after the decease of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Abû Bakr was a person whom the Messenger of Allah had made our leader in namâz, the main pillar of Islam; therefore we elected Abû Bakr Khalîfa.” These statements of Hadrat Alî’s are quoted by Hasan Basrî in the book entitled Istî’âb, by Abû ’Amr.

Hakem bin Hajar reports, again in the book Istî’âb, that he heard from Hadrat Alî: “If a person holds me superior to Abû Bakr and ’Umar, he is a slanderer. I will beat him, as I beat slanderers.” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’

No one in the world has escaped being libeled, somehow, by wicked people. Heretics called Mu’tazila vilified even prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawâtu wa-t-taslîmât’ and angels. Across the vilifications, however, people of wisdom and reason diagnose the vilified people’s purity and nobility. A clear evidence proving the superiorities of the Shaikhayn is the fact that their obstinately jealous and prejudiced adversaries have been reiterating the same stereotyped sophisms for centuries.

One of their vilifications is based on Hadrat Abû Bakr’s refusal to give Hadrat Fâtima an inheritance from her father ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’.

Hadrat Abû Bakr’s refusal to give her an inheritance was merely intended to obey the injunction implied in the hadîth-i-sherîf, “We prophets do not leave an inheritance behind us. No one inherits property from us.” It is stated in the Qur’ân al-kerîm that prophets such as Dâwûd (David), Suleymân (Solomon), Yahyâ (John) and Zakariyyâ (Zachariah) ‘alaihim-us-salâm’ used the word ‘inheritance’ in their statements. Naturally, our Prophet was the person who understood the meanings of the Qur’ân al-kerîm best. Realizing that the word ‘inheritance’ used in the âyat-i-kerîmas meant ‘inheritance of knowledge and caliphate’, and not ‘inheritance of property’, our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ uttered the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted above. The hadîth-i-sherîf is a clarification of the Qur’ân al-kerîm (in this matter). As Abû Dâwûd narrates, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had date orchards at Benî Nadîr, at Hayber, and at Fadak. He would dispense the income from the first one to civil servants, and the income from Fadak to the poor. He would divide the income from the one at Hayber into three, giving two-thirds to Muslims, and the remaining one-third to his Ahl-i-Bayt, i.e. his family. In case any amount remained, he would dispense it to the poor ones of the Muhâjirs. When Hadrat Abû Bakr became Khalîfa, he did not change this policy of the Messenger of Allah. When Hadrat ’Umar became Khalîfa, he sent for Hadrat Alî and Hadrat Abbâs, and asked them, when they arrived, if they had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf which we have quoted above, swearing them to telling the truth. They replied that they had. Hadrat Fâtima only wanted to be blessed[79] by taking possession of property which was impeccably halâl (canonically lawful) because it was given by Islam; she was somewhat upset when she was not given property of inheritance although she had heard the hadîth-i-sherîf; it was only human after all. Nor did Hadrat Alî change the policy perpetuated by the Shaikhayn; and he did not give the orchards to his children when he assumed caliphate. ’Umar bin ’Abdul’azîz also followed their example.

Siddîq (Hadrat Abû Bakr) ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had a thief’s left hand cut off. They criticize him for that chastisement which they alledge to be incompatible with Islam. The event is related at length in the book Muwatta. The thief’s right hand and foot had already been mutilated. It was for his left hand’s turn to be cut off. Hadrat Abû Bakr’s example is followed in the Madhhabs of Mâlikî and Shâfi’î. The Madhhabs of Hanafî and Hanbalî, on the other hand, follow a report coming through Hadrat Alî; accordingly, if a person’s one hand and one foot have already been mutilated, he is imprisoned instead of another one of his limbs being cut off.

Another reason for which they blame Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was his not having implemented qisâs (retaliation) for Mâlik bin Nuwayra.

Khâlid bin Walîd inferred from Mâlik’s choice of words that he had become a renegade (from Islam). So he had him killed. Because Hadrat Abû Bakr’s ijtihâd indicated that Hadrat Khâlid was telling the truth, he did not implement qisâs on Hadrat Khâlid. We wonder what justification those people will suggest for Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ not having implemented qisâs on Hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers, since they see no justification in Hadrat Abû Bakr’s attitude?

They claim that “It had been neither openly commanded nor implied beforehand that Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ should be (the first) Khalîfa. If it had been so, he would not have been elected Khalîfa (later) by way of ijtihâd, for ijtihâd would have been unnecessary.” Seven overlapping preambles would be illuminative in answering their argument:

1) There were several manners in which the Wahy[80] came to Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Some of the âyats (warning about the vehemence and imminence) of torment (in Hell) came with sounds like those of bells. Jebrâîl ‘alaihis-sallâm’ would appear in human guise and say the âyats to the blessed Prophet. Occasionally, wahy would happen during (the Prophet’s) dreams. Firâsat (insight) also was sometimes a manner of wahy. Most of those kinds of wahy does not exist in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. It is not permissible to question its reasons. We should not ask, for instance, why most of the instructions pertaining to namâz do not explicitly take place in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, whereas everything about fasting is described clearly. Likewise, it cannot be questioned why a certain commandment was revealed in a dream instead of simply being declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Likewise, we are not supposed to interrogate why Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate was not foretold in the Qur’ân al-kerîm instead of being implied in a prophetic dream.

2) Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ announced some of the commandments and prohibitions clearly. On the other hand, he implied some of them by saying, for instance, “May Allah’s compassion be on anyone who performs that act,” or by imprecating, “May he who commits that act be accursed in the view of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” This policy also is something unquestionable. For instance, it cannot be asked why the Shaikhayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ caliphates were implied in a manner of dream-telling and not as a direct commandment, saying, for instance, “Make Abû Bakr and ’Umar Khalîfas after me.”

3) Some commandments were implied in narrations of future events. Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ coming back and the Dajjâl’s appearing were foretold, and the Dajjâl’s iniquities were stated. These narrations imply certain commandments, e.g. “Obey Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ when he comes back,” and proscriptions, such as, “Do not follow the Dajjâl when he appears!” Another method of commanding or prohibiting certain acts was to say, for instance, “I have seen those people who do this and that in Paradise,” or, “I have seen people who do so in Hell.” Commandments and prohibitions are sometimes stated clearly in âyats, and sometimes by way of presuppositions imported in âyats. For instance, the statement, “So and so has manumitted Ahmad,” imports the presupposition (iqtidâ) that Ahmad was his slave. To say, “I have designated this person as your commander,” means that you should obey that person’s orders, which is a presupposition imported in the statement. By the same token, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared openly that He would appoint (some people as) Khalîfas over this Ummat (Muslims). And He revelad in (the blessed Prophet’s) dreams that the Shaikhayn would be (the earliest) Khalîfas. Likewise, by giving Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ the Glad Tidings that He would send unto humanity a prophet whose dispensation would be the finality of Divine Messengership, Allâhu ta’âlâ implied that all people should obey His final Prophet. “Adhere to my path and, after me, to the path in which the Khulafâ-ar-râshîdîn (the earliest four Khalîfas; namely, Hadrat Abû Bakr, Hadrat ’Umar, Hadrat ’Uthmân, and Hadrat Alî) will be guiding you,” is a hadîth-i-sherîf which commands to obey the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. That they would assume caliphate was a presupposition imported in this hadîth-i-sherîf.

4) That it was implied that the Shaikhayn would assume caliphate is symptomatic of the fact that they were rightly-guided and true Khalîfas. It is identical with Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ happy prophecy about the advent of the final Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam.’

5) Two unclear pieces of information provided in the nass are united to indicate a clear fact. For instance, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” does not clearly foretell the Shaikhayn’s caliphates although it contains their very names. However, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me, adhere to the path in which the Khulafâ-ar-râshidîn will be guiding you,” complements it into a clear indication of their future caliphates. When the two hadîth-i-sherîfs are combined, it becomes an established fact that the Shaikhayn were (rightly-guided) Khalîfas. Why the fact was divided into two complementary utterances is a prophetic mystery the ultimate divine benefits of which are known only to the owner of the utterances.

6) (The documentary sources of Islam called) the Edilla-i-shar’iyya are four. The third of these four sources is Ijmâ’, (which means consensus of the Sahâba on a religious matter). Realization of ijmâ’ requires existence of a delîl, i.e. a document, based on the Book, (i.e. the Qur’ân al-kerîm,) or the Sunnat, (i.e. hadîth-i-sherîfs). The Ashâb-i-kirâm reached (a consensus called) ijmâ’ by reminding the delîls to one another. They designated Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ as Khalîfa as a result of that ijmâ’. Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ statement, “We know that he is the most eligible for the office,” attests this fact.

7) The terms istikhlâf, (i.e. leaving someone as one’s successor,) and sarîh nass, which are used by Imâm Nawâwî and other scholars, have various meanings. If the head of the (Islamic) state convenes the prominent statesmen, towards his death, and tells them to pay homage to a certain person (after his death), he has done istikhlâf by way of sarîh nass. Otherwise, it is (only) istikhlâf to say that that person is eligible for being Khalîfa. This way of (indirect) designation does not stipulate conditions such as closeness of (the present Khalîfa’s) death and (his) convening the prominent state authorities. It is a way of informing, rather than a commandment. If a certain person has been recommended by way of istikhlâf, this implicit priority he has gained does not place any restrictions on someone else’s assuming office as (the new) Khalîfa. Istikhlâf is sometimes quite unclear. It can be clarified only by way of the presupposition imported in the (previous Khalîfa’s) statement. Or, it becomes clear when two different (implicit) statements are collocated. Different scholars of Fiqh may derive different meanings from the presupposition imported in a certain statement.

We can now rest our conclusive answer on the informational background supplied by the above seven introductory paragraphs: According to Imâm Shâfi’î ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, who was the chief of the Madhhab with which Imâm Nawawî was affiliated, –in fact, Imâm Shâfi’î was the chief of all the scholars of Hadîth, as well as those of Fiqh–, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “If I am not here when you come back, ask (your questions to) Abû Bakr,” was a clear indication of the fact that Abû Bakr was to be (the first) Khalîfa. Imâm Shâfi’î was a scholar with profound knowledge, a keen perception, and an utterly solid reasoning. He was one of the documentary signs which Allâhu ta’âlâ specially created. He states that that hadîth-i-sherîf, an apparent order given to a certain woman as it was, was in actual fact an implication which must inevitably be construed as an information foretelling that Hadrat Abû Bakr was to be Khalîfa. As Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ uttered that hadîth-i-sherîf, he did not show any signs of regret or displeasure. This state shows that the event foretold was to be justified and canonically lawful. Other hadîth-i-sherîfs uttered at various places indicate Hadrat Abû Bakr’s caliphate more directly. Collectively, they make up a (certain religious fact which is termed) tawâtur. Imâm Nawawî’s argument, “If there were a nass, (i.e. a clear narration,) they would quote it and act accordingly. They did not quote a nass,” is quite out of place. On the contrary, they did quote various nasses, i.e. clear narrations. For instance, they said that when a person is designated as an imâm (to conduct the public prayers of namâz for Rasûlullah’s place), he is to be Khalîfa (after the Messenger of Allah). Because it was an established fact known by all the Ashâb-i-kirâm, they considered it unnecessary to search for and quote other nasses. Besides, bereaved of the Messenger of Allah, they were totally overwhelmed with grief and despair; worse still, intelligence had arrived that the Arabs had turned renegade and were marching towards Medîna. The caliphate election had to be done as soon as possible. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ summarizes the event as follows: “When Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ became ill, he ordered us to tell Abû Bakr to conduct the salâts. Afterwards, we (remembered this event and) thought the matter over upon Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ passing away. We elected Abû Bakr as Khalîfa, since he was a person whom the Messenger of Allah had made our leader in salât (namâz), which was Islam’s flag and the archstone of all acts of piety.”

Question: Hadrat Abû Bakr pointed to Hadrat ’Umar and Abû ’Ubayda ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ and said, “Pay homage to one of these two people.” Doesn’t this attitude of his show that there was not a nass to indicate that he was to be Khalîfa? Isn’t it harâm to prefer someone else despite the nass?

Answer: That behaviour of Hadrat Abû Bakr’s was a clever and polite technique applied to make others acknowledge the existence of a nass which indicated his caliphate. It was intended to announce what he knew through others’ tongues.

That Hadrat Abû Bakr is the highest member of this Ummat is a fact stated by most of the Islamic scholars. Another fact which is unanimously stated (by the Islamic scholars) is that after Hadrat ’Uthmân, Hadrat Alî is the (fourth) highest. There were also scholars who stated that Hadrat Alî was higher than Hadrat ’Uthmân, and that he was even higher than the Shaikhayn.

According to a report narrated on the authority of Nizâl bin Sabra in the page containing the entry ‘Abdullah bin Abî Quhâfa’ in the book Istî’âb, Hadrat Alî stated, “After our Prophet, the most auspicious Muslim among this Ummat is Abû Bakr. Next after him comes ’Umar.” This statement of Hadrat Alî’s was also quoted by Muhammad bin Hanafiyya, one of Hadrat Alî’s sons; by ’Abd-i-Khayr; and by Abû Juhayfa. Another quotation from Hadrat Alî reads as follows: “The Messenger of Allah was in the lead. Then Abû Bakr took over from him. Hadrat ’Umar was the third. Thereafter came fitna (chaos, turmoil, mischief, sedition).” Abd-i-Khayr quotes Hadrat Alî as having said: “May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless Abû Bakr with His Compassion, for he was first to bring this Ummat together.” Abdullah bin Ja’far Tayyâr observed: “Abû Bakr became Khalîfa over us. He was utterly useful and extremely merciful.” Mesrûq observed: “It is a symptom of Ahl as-Sunnat to love Abû Bakr and ’Umar and to believe in their superiority.” This is the end of the passage we have borrowed from Istî’âb. Ibn Hajar Makkî observed: “Those (scholars) who stress Hadrat Alî’s superiority mean that he was superior in some respects, which is by no means fadl-i-kullî (overall superiority).” This partial superiority provides him excellence over people other than the three Khalîfas (previous to him).

The Ashâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în had various different merits. Most of the Tâbi’în were not mujtahids. Ijmâ’ means ‘consensus of mujtahids’. If there is an ijmâ’ on a certain matter, it is not permissible to follow the muqallids’ words in that matter. There are various ijtihâds on matters which have not been settled by way of ijmâ’. The differences of ijtihâds are eliminated by way of discussion and consultation, and thereby an ijmâ’ (consensus) is reached. All the decisions which the Salaf as-Sâlihîn reached by way of ijmâ’ were of this sort. Salmân Fârisî’s statement, “There was correctness as well as error in the caliphate of Abû Bakr,” means, “There were various ijtihâds as to the superiorities of Abû Bakr, and he was elected by way of ijmâ’.” Abû Juhayfa observed: “My ijtihâd indicated that Hadrat Alî was superior to all. However, when Hadrat Alî mounted the minbar and acknowledged that Abû Bakr was the most superior member of this Ummat and that ’Umar was next after him, my ijtihâd became null and void.” Also, Imâm Mâlik’s remark, “I cannot hold anyone superior to a part from the Prophet,” signifies fadl-i-juz’î (partial superiority; superiority in some respects). So is the case with all the remarks made by the minority who held Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ superior.

Question: Don’t the utterances made by the scholars of Kalâm concerning the superiority of Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ seem to be pure guesswork rather than statements of definite facts?

Answer: True. There were scholars who surmised his superiority as well as those who were certain as to their statements. However, even those who only surmised opted to believe in the affirmative, and none of them took a negative approach to the matter. That indicates that the superiority of Abû Bakr is an ineluctable fact. Abul Hasan Ash’arî, the leader of the instructors of the Sunnî path, states the superiority of Abû Bakr definitely. Others’ asserting that Hadrat Abû Bakr was elected Khalîfa in consequence of ijtihad based on guesswork could not eclipse this certain fact. There are two groups of Ashâ’ira, i.e. scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat. In the first group are those scholars who always defeated their opponents in the discussions. Those people did not busy themselves very much in the science of Hadîth. Abû Bakr Bâqillânî and Imâm Râdî (ar-Râzî) and Qâdî Baydâwî and Qâdî ’Adûd and Sa’duddîn Teftâzânî are a few of them. The second group are the scholars of Hadîth. Those scholars kept away from discussions. Nor did they delve into depths. Ajûrî and Bayhakî are two of those scholars. We muqallids (imitators, non-scholars, ordinary Muslims) subsist on the remnants of the meals of those two groups of scholars. We feed ourselves by licking the dishes of those great scholars. If the arguments presented by those who hold that the superiority of Hadrat Abû Bakr is based on guesswork are studied with due attention, it will be seen that they are based on the apparently contradictory narrations coming from the Salaf as-Sâlihîn (the early Islamic scholars). However, as we have explained, those narrations are not actually contradictory. Some of those people, on the other hand, assess the superiority by a criterion based on the consensus reached on the caliphate election. Yet it is another fact we have already explained that many another criterion was taken into consideration concerning superiority. Earliness in embracing Islam, for instance, was one of the favourable qualifications. As is inferred from the words of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn, the caliphate election was posterior to the determination of superiorities. Superiority is a condition indispensable in Khilâfat-i-nubuwwat, i.e. in being the Prophet’s Khalîfa. The tenure of office essential in that level of caliphate is thirty years. Caliphates in the aftermath do not stipulate superiority. The book Sharh Mawâqif provides a splendid explication of this matter. Here are the conclusive remarks presented in the book:

“Superiority is not something measurable by accurate gradations. Nor is it confined within mental areas of cognition. For instance, a certain person cannot be held superior because apparently he has more thawâb, (i.e. he has done more pious acts than other people have done and therefore deserves more rewards in the Hereafter). It can be assessed, to some extent, on the basis of the majority of reports. On the other hand, it has by no means any affinity with teachings of Fiqh, in which a Muslim can utilize his zann-i-ghâlib (preferrable guesswork) as a last resort in his religious concerns. It is a matter of knowledge, which in turn requires certainty and positive judgment. Contradictory nasses are not productive of definite knowledge. Nor is the profusion of the symptoms suggesting the abundance of merits and bleessings (thawâb) viable in accurate mensuration. For, thawâb is a gift from Allâhu ta’âlâ. He may not give any thawâb to a person for his acts of worship. For another person’s worship, in contrast, He may give very much thawâb. Having been elected as Khalîfa, even if it is definite itself, is not a definite indication of superiority. At the most, it causes surmise. Then, how could it ever be confidently held that it is not sahîh (valid, canonically lawful) to elect someone inferior as Khalîfa despite the existence of a superior one? Besides, it is a fact conveyed to us by the Salaf as-Sâlihîn that the order of superiority (among the earliest four Khalîfas) is (coincidental with the order of their caliphates, i.e. it is as follows): Hadrat Abû Bakr was the highest; Hadrat ’Umar was the second highest; Hadrat ’Uthmân was the third highest; and Hadrat Alî was the fourth highest. As a requirement of the good opinion we have for the Salaf as-Sâlihîn, we say that ‘They would not have communicated to us something they had not known for certain. It is wâjib (incumbent) on us Muslims to follow the Salaf as-Sâlihîn. Allâhu ta’âlâ knows all truth.’

“Âmidî [Sayf-ud-dîn Alî bin Muhammad] provides the following explanation: When someone is said to be superior to another person, it may be meant either that the former is knowledgeable and the latter is ignorant or that the former is more knowledgeable than the latter, (although he, too, is a knowledgeable person). None of these two sorts of superiority could have been the case among the Ashâb-i-kirâm. In fact, each and every one of them had special merits in addition to the merits which all of them commonly possessed. A certain merit can be more valuable than (the sum of) various other merits. Therefore, a person who has the greatest number of merits cannot be said to be the most superior.” This is the end of the excerpt we have borrowed from Sharh Mawâqif. [Âmid is the former name of a city (in Southeastern Turkey) which is now called Diyâr-i-Bakr. According to information given within the chapter dealing with various kinds of testimony in the book Durr-ul-mukhtâr, and also in the book Fawâid-ul-behiyya, the Salaf as-Salihîn are the scholars of the first two (Islamic) centuries, who are commended in a hadîth-i-sherîf. Those blessed people are also called the Sadr-ul-awwal.]

Ijmâ’ is one of the four (Islamic) documentary sources. When there is not a single report contradictory to the ijmâ’, it is definite ijmâ’. When there is a contradictory report, even if it is (one of those kinds of reports called) shâz (weakly supported) or nâdir (rare), the ijmâ’ in this case is suppositional, not definite. According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat, the caliphate of Hadrat ’Uthman was rightly-guided. The scholars are unanimous in that. Yet there is not a consensus on that Hadrat ’Uthmân was superior to Hadrat Alî. As is seen, certainty of caliphate does not cause certainty of superiority. Nor does uncertainty concerning a person’s superirotiy cause uncertainty concerning his caliphate. Actual superiority is to be loved very much by Allâhu ta’âlâ, which can be learned only from wahy. Being praised very much does not indicate (additional) superiority. Indeed, all the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ were praised very much.

Question: The hadîth-i-sherîfs indicating that Hadrat Abû Bakr would be Khalîfa are identical with prophecies about Allâhu ta’âlâ’s future creations. They do not indicate an exclusive right. Even if we were to admit that they indicated a right, it would only be a permission. In fact, if there were two candidates equal in superiority, any one of them would assume office (as Khalîfa); however, that person may have been somewhat below the other one in superiority. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “After me, pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” means, “Pay homage to them because Allâhu ta’âlâ decrees their caliphate!” For, it is wâjib to obey the Khalîfa even if he is not superior. Likewise, the hadîth-i-sherîf, “I shall rise from grave together with Abû Bakr and ’Umar,” informs about a future coincidence. Reports of this sort do not indicate superiority. Other hadîth-i-sherîfs and dreams also inform about future events.

Answer: Irâda-i-teshrî’î is dependent upon Irâda-i-tekwînî. Allâhu ta’âlâ knew in the eternal past that He would create certain people at certain times. He knew also what would be useful for those people. He willed to create those people in their times. He determined the harâms, the halâls, and His commandments. In other words, He decreed them. He creates them when their time comes. He willed in the eternal past that the Shaikhayn would be Khalîfas. He informed His Messenger about that decree of His. And the Messenger of Allah, in his turn, informed the Muslims about the ‘Irâda-i-tekwînî’ by saying, “After me,” and about the ‘Irâda-i-teshrî’î’ by saying, “Pay homage!” So was the case with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s decreeing in the eternal past that He would create Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and that it would be farz to believe him. That it is farz to believe the Messenger of Allah and it is wâjib to obey the Khalîfas indicates a special merit reserved for them. No other merit can be superior to that special merit. There are more than fifty evidences indicating the caliphates of the Shaikhayn. And most of them are clearly stated evidences.

Question: Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat ’Uthmân banned the kinds of hajj called Mut’a and Qirân.[81] The Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ were opposed to that banning. What would you say about that?

Answer: It is a fact stated by the scholars of the four Madhhabs that Hadrat ’Umar was not against Mut’a hajj. He merely said that Meccans would earn more thawâb if they performed Ifrâd hajj. The four Madhhabs differ in many of the acts of worship within hajj. The differences among them are based on ijtihâd. Differences of ijtihâd are not bid’ats. The Ashâb-i-kirâm described with all the minute details how Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ performed hajj. There is not an iota of difference among their descriptions. However, their speculations on the blessed Messenger’s purposes for some of his performances varied. According to the Shâfi’î and Mâlikî Madhhabs, Rasûlullah’s hajj was Ifrâd. Hadrat ’Umar and Hadrat ’Uthmân also reported so.

Question: The (kind of temporary cohabitation termed) mut’a nikâh was widely practiced in the time of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Hadrat ’Umar banned it when he became Khalîfa. Didn’t that mean to cancel an act of Sunnat?

Answer: The Ashâb-i-kirâm were at variance among themselves on the actual purport of the hadîth-i-sherîfs concerning the matter. Hadrat ’Umar put an end to the discussions. A consensus (ijmâ’) was reached. It can be inferred from this event also that Hadrat ’Umar was a true Khalîfa of the Messenger of Allah. The hadîth-i-sherîf informing that the mut’a nikâh was made harâm (forbidden) is written in the books Bukhârî and Muslim and Muwatta. This fact was reported also by Hadrat Alî.

Question: Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ asked for a pen and paper towards his death. Hadrat ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ objected to the Prophet’s order on the pretext that “He must be in a mental disturbance caused by illness to say so. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.”

Answer: After the revelation of the âyat-i-kerîma commanding consultation, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ usually consulted with his Sahâba before making important decisions. The wahy that was revealed in the aftermath of the discussions was more often than not in favour of the Sahâba’s arguments. The salât of janâza for Abdullah bin ’Ubayy was performed at the end of such consultations. Hadrat ’Umar’s comment was in the same category. Approving of Hadrat ’Umar’s comment, Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ desisted from his demand. He never repeated his demand from Thursday till the following Monday. He would have repeated his order within the intervening days if he had wished to do so. If there had been something to be recorded, he would necessarily have repeated his demand. This event is an animated document indicative of the value and honour of Hadrat ’Umar in the view of the Messenger of Allah. He could not be blamed for having said, “Ask him (again). I am afraid he must have said so in a state of delirium (due to his fever),” to prevent others’ attempt to fetch a pen and paper. Indeed, he would have meant, “The Prophet will not talk wildly (under normal conditions). He will always tell the truth. Ask him again for confirmation.” Nevertheless, there is not an authentic report ascribing the utterance of the words, “... he must have said so in a state of delirium,” to Hadrat ’Umar. What is even more farcical is the preposterous allegation that “The Messenger of Allah was going to write an order designating Hadrat Alî as his Khalîfa. That was why Hadrat ’Umar prevented others from getting a pen and paper.” It is a squalid attempt of divination on past people’s inner intentions. Had it been necessary to write the would-be Khalîfa’s name, Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ also would have done so. In fact, it was during that period of illness when the blessed Messenger said to Hadrat Âisha: “Send for your father Abû Bakr! I shall write (out a document) for him, for I am afraid that someone may come forward with the claim that he is more eligible than Abû Bakr for caliphate. It is Abû Bakr, alone, whom Allâhu ta’âlâ and the Believers will approve.” This hadîth-i-sherîf is written in Muslim. Thereafter the blessed Prophet ordered, “Leave (here, and let) me (be) by myself!” That prophetic order shows that he wished the Refîq-i-a’lâ (to be with Allâhu ta’âlâ).

Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ appointed his kinsmen to important positions. Is it something justifiable?

Answer: So did Hadrat Alî. Those great people cannot be criticized for such practices. Likewise, Hadrat Alî did not apply qisâs (retaliation) on Hadrat ’Uthmân’s murderers. He did not show deference to Abû Mûsa-l-Ash’ârî and Abû Mes’ûd Ansârî. He failed to prevent bloodshed among Muslims. He did not join the Holy War of Tabuk. These facts do not detract from Hadrat Alî’s great honour. On the contrary, Hadrat ’Uthmân’s kindness towards his kinsmen was something Islam advised. By doing so, he attained the thawâb promised for Sila-i-rahm. Besides, he did all his kindnesses from his personal property. He could be held culpable if he had given presents from the Bayt-ul-mâl. Dispensing one’s rightful deserts from the Bayt-ul-mâl to Muslims instead of making personal use of them, is pure meritorious, let alone blameworthy, conduct. Hadrat ’Uthmân’s kinsmen made jihâd. They demonstrated very much heroism. He rewarded them by giving them their dues, as he rewarded the other mujâhids. The Islamic expansions over Asia and Africa in the time of Hadrat ’Uthmân were due to his profuse kindnesses. As a matter of fact, the Messenger of Allah also would give more ganîmat to the Qoureishîs than to other people. And to the Hâshimîs (Hashimites) he would give even more. Hadrat ’Umar’s statement, “I am afraid ’Uthmân will appoint the Benî Umayya to positions over the Muslims,” was intended to offer his opinion as to the futility of (Hadrat ’Uthmân’s) probable future preference, rather than his disapproval of Hadrat ’Uthmân’s policies. A mujtahid cannot be blamed for acting upon his own ijtihâd. And it is the Khalîfa’s prerogative to appoint any person he chooses to a position as he wishes. In fact, it is his duty. He preferred his kinsmen, considering that they would be more loyal to him. That policy of his proved gainful. Their wrongdoings, on the other hand, were not committed on his instructions. The Khalîfa does not have to know someone’s future activities. His slowness in the qisâs (retaliation) to be inflicted on Walîd bin ’Uqba was intended to take time for a healthier investigation of the complaints. When the people of Kûfa reported that Walîd was guilty of wine consumption, he ordered Hadrat Alî to inflict the flogging termed hadd on him. And Hadrat Alî did as he was ordered (by the Khalîfa). By burning the copy of the Qur’ân al-kerîm prepared by Abdullah bin Mes’ûd, he united all the Muslims around the copy of the Qur’ân al-kerîm prepared by the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’. His attitude was not intended to insult Abdullah bin Mes’ûd. On the contrary, it was a great service rendered to Islam. As for the banishment of Abû Zer from Medîna; it was because he had violated the ijmâ’; therefore it was not an arbitrary banishment.

Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ paid no attention to Muhammad bin Abû Bakr’s cries.

Answer: Muhammad bin Abû Bakr was not a faultless person; nor was he innocent at all. It was the Khalîfa’s duty to chastise him. That the letter containing the order, “Kill both of them,” was not written by Hadrat ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’, and that it was an act of duplicity contrived by some ignoble tribesmen, is written in a history book by Yâfi’î.

Question: Hadrat ’Uthmân did not inflict qisâs on Abdullah bin ’Umar ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.

Answer: The Khalîfa appeased the murdered person’s inheritors by giving them plenty of property. This precaution forestalled an imminent fitna. The event was a typical example of administrative finesse.

Answer: Yes, he did. And he made them not as his own property, but as pastures and habitats for the animals belonging to the Bayt-ul-mâl. This policy was a great service to the Bayt-ul-mâl.

There is no evidence to imply that Hadrat Alî had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat ’Uthmân. Nor is there an iota of likelihood as to that. Because the murderers were numerous and dominant, Hadrat Alî could not perform the qisâs immediately. Moreover, Hadrat ’Uthmân’s inheritors did not demand qisâs. Nor was the assassin known by name. As a matter of fact, the murderers were rebellious against Hadrat ’Uthmân, and, (strategically,) obedient to Hadrat Alî.

The election that brought Hadrat Alî to office as (the new) Khalîfa was canonically lawful. Most of the notables who had a say in the matter paid homage to him. Talha and Zubayr were not against his caliphate. Their only demand was the performance of the qisâs (as early as possible). It is stated as follows in the book Istî’âb: “Hadrat Alî was paid homage to on the very day when Hadrat ’Uthmân had been martyred. The Muhâjirs and the Ansâr paid homage to him. Hadrat Mu’âwiya and the Damascenes refused homage to him. Allâhu ta’âlâ declared that He would forgive them.”

According to the group of Imâmiyya, it is permissible to announce the practices of an innocent (sinless) imâm (religious leader, khalîfa) in the name of the Prophet’s practices. This belief induced them to concoct quite a number of false hadîths. Daylamî and Khatîb (Baghdâdî) and ibn Asâkîr saw that the scholars before them had compiled all the hadîths that were in the categories termed Sahih and Hasan. So they compiled the hadîths called Da’îf, (or Za’îf). That the hadîths written in the books Bukhârî and Muslim are true ones is acknowledged unanimously by all the dependable religious authorities.

The statement, “Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ passed away on Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ lap and made his last will to Hadrat Alî,” is untrue. The utterance, “Make war against people with whom Hadrat Alî makes war,” is not a hadîth-i-sherîf.

None of the âyat-i-kerîmas which the group of Imâmiyya claim were revealed for Hadrat Alî contains the name of Hadrat Alî; nor is there any clue to show that they were revealed for him. On the other hand, there are clear signs symptomatic of the fact that the âyat telling the event in the cave and some other âyats were revealed for Hadrat Abû Bakr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. This fact is acknowledged in Shiite books as well. The âyat of Tathîr concerns not Hadrat Alî, but the Zawjât at-tâhirât (the blessed wives of the Messenger of Allah). So does the âyat of Mubâhala. The âyat-i-kerîma which purports, “I want you to love my kinsfolk,” concerns not (only) Hadrat Alî, but (also) all the Prophet’s believing kinsfolk.

The hadîth-i-sherîf which was uttered at a place called Ghadîr-i-Hum commands to love his (the blessed Prophet’s) Ahl-i-Bayt. That hadîth-i-sherîf does not contain the final words that state, “He is the Khalîfa after me,” or “He is your walî (guardian) after me,” or any other words to that effect. They are concoctions. There are hundreds of hadîths fabricated in that manner. The Islamic scholars have divulged the liars responsible for such misleading accretions.

Question: It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “On the Rising Day, many people whom I know will be made to move away from my Pond (Kawthar). When I call them back, saying, ‘My Sahâbâ,’ a voice will be heard to say: You do not know what they did after you.” Doesn’t this hadîth-i-sherîf foretell that most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ will deviate from the right path?

Answer: The blessed Prophet warned during the valedictory khutba which he made at his final hajj: “Do not turn renegade after me! And do not decapitate one another!” This hadîth-i-sherîf indicates that those who did not make war against the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ and those who did not fight the Muslims are not within the scope of the (previous) hadîth-i-sherîf. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ blessed the Shaikhayn and most of the Ashâb-i-kirâm with the Glad Tidings that they would go to Paradise. This Glad Tidings shows that they will die with îmân (as Believers), go into Paradise, and dwell near Rasûlullah’s Pond in company with the Best of Mankind. Furthermore, the fifty-fourth âyat of Mâida sûra purports: “Ye who believe! If any from among you turns back from his faith, soon will Allâhu ta’âlâ produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,– ...” (5-54) This âyat-i-kerîma indicates that Allâhu ta’âlâ loves those who make a stand against people who become renegades. It was during the caliphate of Hadrat Abû Bakr that the threatened situation materialized. To have a bad opinion of those blessed people who have been listed by their well-known names and epithets among the people of Paradise, and worse still, to malign them, means to expose oneself to the greatest disaster. That the Muslims who joined the Holy War of Badr are people of Paradise is one of the plain Islamic declarations. It is abysmal ignorance to speak ill of those fortunate people.

Question: Isn’t the hadîth-i-sherîf, “Allâhu ta’âlâ will send twelve Khalîfas. All of them are from the tribe of Qoureish,” indicative of the Twelve Imâms ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în?

Answer: At first sight, that the argument pressed by the group of Imâmiyya is a sound one seems to be a fair inference from that hadîth-i-sherîf. However, hadîth-i-sherîfs, like âyat-i-kerîmas, elucidate one another. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Abdullah ibn Mes’ûd: “The Islamic mill will run for thirty-five years. Thereafter, there will be people who will perish. And those who will come afterwards will promote Islam for seventy years.” What we –Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî means himself– understand from the hadîth-i-sherîf is this: The beginning of the so-called thirty-five-year period is the second year of the Hijrat, which is at the same time the beginning of the earliest movement of jihâd. In the thirty-fifth year Hadrat ’Uthmân was martyred and disunion among Muslims broke out. Jihâd and the spreading of Islam came to a standstill. Muslims slaughtered one another in the wars of Camel and Siffîn. Allâhu ta’âlâ reorganized the caliphate and thereupon jihâd was resumed. It was maintained till the collapse of the Benî Umayya [Umayyad, Emevî] dynasty. Turmoil prevailed again as the Abbâsî [Abbasid] state was being established. Many Muslims lost their lives during the commotions. Then Allâhu ta’âlâ reorganized the caliphate once again. The newly established order lasted until Hulâghû burned and destroyed Baghdâd. A hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Sa’d ibn Abî Waqqâs reads as follows: “I pray to my Allah to maintain my Ummat’s power till the end of half a day.” When asked what was meant by “half a day,” Sa’d replied that it was five hundred years. This hadîth-i-sherîf covers the lifespan of the Abbasid state, [i.e. five hundred and twenty-four years]. The hadîth-i-sherîf previous to it signifies the Khilâfat-i-nubuwwat, stating that it is a thirty-five-year period, and calling the Khalîfas who will assume office thereafter Melîk-i-’adûd, i.e. Sultân. So, the hadîth-i-sherîf (quoted in the question) implies that the total number of the Khalîfas within the two periods is twelve. It is quite wrong to confuse the twelve Khalîfas in the hadîth-i-sherîf with the Twelve Imâms. For, the word used in the hadîth-i-sherîf is Khilâfat (caliphate), not Imâmat. That most of the Twelve Imâms were not Khalîfas is a plain fact which is acknowledged even by the Shiites. It is stated in the hadîth-i-sherîf that the twelve Khalîfas are Qoureishîs, which indicates that not all of them are Hâshimîs. The group of Imâmiyya do not claim that the Twelve Imâms spread Islam and conquered lands. On the contrary, they say, “Islam was covered up after the death of the Messenger of Allah. The imâms, preoccupied with (the dissimulation called) teqiyya, failed to guide the people. Hadrat Alî could not say what he knew.” Whereas the hadîth-i-sherîf foretells a slackening of Islamic principles after the Twelve Imâms, the Imâmiyya group claim that after the completion of the Twelve Imâms Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’ will descend from heaven and promulgate Islam. According to our understanding, the twelve Khalîfas (mentioned in the hadîth-i-sherîf) are the earliest four Khalîfas, who are called Khulafâ-i-râshidîn, and after them, Hadrat Mu’âwiya and ’Abdulmelik and his four sons, and ’Umar bin ’Abdul’azîz, and Walîd, who was ’Abdulmelik’s grandson. Abdullah bin Zubayr should be outside of the group of twelve Khalîfas. For, the hadîth-i-sherîf quoted on the authority of Hadrat ’Umar has proved to have been prescient of the fact that Abdullah bin Zubayr’s appearing as a Khalîfa would be one of the disasters to befall this Ummat (Muslims), inasmuch as his assuming office caused bloodshed in the blessed city of Mekka, which in its turn was sacrilege towards Kâ’ba-i-mu’azzama. Since Yazîd and the other Umayyad Khalîfas did not render services to Islam, they are not included among the twelve Khalîfas.

Question: Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ had many kerâmats. Aren’t they symptomatic of his superiority?

Answer: Shihâbuddîn Suhrawardî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated: “Few kerâmats were witnessed on the Ashâb-i-kirâm. More kerâmats were seen on the Shaikhayn than on Hadrat Alî.” [Most of those kerâmats are related in Yûsuf Nebhânî’s book Jâmi’u kerâmât-il-Awliyâ.]

Question: What would you say about the hadîth-i-sherîf, “I am the city of knowledge. Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ is its gate”?

Answer: This hadîth-i-sherîf is a definite sign of superiority. However, there is many another similar hadîth-i-sherîf. A few examples are: “Acquire one-fourth of knowledge from Humeyrâ!” “After me, pay homage to Abû Bakr and ’Umar!” “If ibn Umm-i-Abd is pleased with a person, I am pleased with him, too!” Humeyrâ is the epithet which Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ gave to Hadrat Âisha ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’. It is a widely known fact that Hadrat Alî had superior religious lore and that he was ahead of most of the Sahâba in the science of Genealogy. All these superior qualities, however, fall short of making him superior to the Shaikhayn.

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muhammad Bâqir and Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’, two of the descendants of Hadrat Alî, were perfect, in knowledge, in wara’, and in worship. Kuleynî writes that Imâm Ja’far Sâdiq was hostile to men of Tasawwuf.

The group of Zaydiyya also are hostile to the orders of Tasawwuf. Abdullah Ansârî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, one of the greatest Awliyâ, states: “I have seen one thousand and two hundred Walîs. Only two of them, namely Sa’dûn and Ibrâhîm, were Sayyids.” And none of those only two Walîs is widely known. There were Sayyids among the Awliyâ of the later centuries. Yet those people received fayz from murshids who were not Sayyids.

The Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs command openly to obey Islam. None of the spiritual states experienced in the orders of Tasawwuf is stated in them. Therefore, superiority is assessed not by Tasawwuf, but by the degree of one’s services to Islam.

Question: People who adapt themselves to prophets ‘alaihim-us-salawât-u-wa-t-taslîmât’ attain Fanâ, Baqâ and other ma’rifats, as well as other valuable spiritual perfections such as Wahdat-i-wujûd. They are given kerâmats. On the other hand, every Muslim practices the five Islamic principles. Great scholars like Imâm Ghazâlî and Celaleddîn Rûmî ‘rahimahumullâhu ta’âlâ’ state that Tawhîd-i-wujûdî is utterly valuable. Then, shouldn’t Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ be superior since he is the source of the orders of Tasawwuf?

Answer: A person who says, “The five Islamic principles will not cause one to become closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ. They will only help people to form good habits and to get along well with one another,” is a zindiq. His real purpose is to demolish Islam. Islam guides one to love of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Allâhu ta’âlâ dislikes people who do not obey Islam. He will torment them. If a person asserts that orders of Tasawwuf are easier guides to love of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we ask him to prove his assertion. Islam is the basis of the orders of Tasawwuf. A person who does not obey Islam cannot be a Walî. We have explained in detail earlier in the text that the Shaikhayn were ahead of all in obeying Islam as well as in causing others to obey Islam. To try to purify the heart by way of dhikr and murâqaba is to obey Islam. Islam’s four sources are: The Book (Qur’ân al-kerîm), the Sunnat (hadîth-i-sherîfs,), the Ijmâ’i Salaf (consensus of the scholars of the first two Islamic centuries), and the Qiyâs-i-fuqahâ (the onerous work carried on by the scholars of Fiqh in order to derive rules, commandments and prohibitions from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs by way of ijtihâd; rules and principles so derived). The Qur’ân al-kerîm contains five groups of teachings:

1– It teaches how to infer the existence and the unity of Allâhu ta’âlâ by observing the creation. [Scientific knowledge is in this group.]

2– Observing the annals of history, it reveals the fact that Believers and people who obeyed Islam always led a happy life, whereas unbelievers lived in excruciation in the world.

3– Stating the blessings and torments in the Hereafter, it encourages people to join the Believers.

4– It teaches how to live for attaining happiness in this world and in the next.

5– It shows ways of getting along with polytheists, with hypocrites, with Jews and Christians, and with the aberrant Muslims in the seventy-two heretical groups.

There are about ten thousand hadîth-i-sherîfs, the repeated ones excluded. With the repeated ones added, their number exceeds one million. All those hadîth-i-sherîfs contain twelve groups of teachings:

1– (They teach) how to adhere to the Kitâbullah (the Qur’ân al-kerîm) and the Sunnat (hadîth-i-sherîfs).

2– Islam’s five principles, dhikrs and Ihsân, i.e. knowledge pertaining to heart. Ihsân is the target of Tasawwuf.

3– Mu’âmalât. Trade intended for a living, teachings of art and agriculture and social rights are all within this group.

6– Meritorious deeds and the superior merits of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.

Qiyâs is employed in the ahkâm-i-shar’iyya, i.e. in the commandments and prohibitions. The knowledge of Tawhîd-i-wujûdî does not exist among all the teachings which we have cited.

Islam consists of the beliefs and practices of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and of the Tâbi’în-i-izâm, [i.e. Muslims who saw the Ashâb-i-kirâm]. Religious teachings which did not exist in those people’s times and which were invented afterwards, are not Islam. The hadîth-i-sherîf, “Follow the path which I and my Sahâba guide,” indicates this fact. It is obvious that the knowledge of Wahdat-i-wujûd is not in the first group of teachings. Nor did that knowledge exist in the time the Sayyid-ut-tâifa Junayd-i-Baghdâdî. So is the case with the aberrant groups like Mu’tazîla, Imâmiyya, Zaydiyya, and Ismâ’îliyya. Those heretical groups also appeared after the Salaf as-Sâlihîn.

As for the pieces of spiritual knowledge called fayz, which emanated from Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ blessed heart, flowed into the hearts of the Ashâb-i-kirâm and the Tâbi’în, and reached our time by flowing from one heart into another; they are perfectly Islamic. Ihsân was the term attached to them. [Later, they were called Tasawwuf.]

When the Islamic practices are done with ikhlâs and pure intentions, they are valuable. If they are done for the purpose of satisfying one’s sensuous desires, (the desires of the nafs,) or for fame, they will cause one to get away from Allâhu ta’âlâ; they will lead one into Hell.

Question: Don’t the words of the great men of Tasawwuf indicate that the knowledge of Tasawwuf is superior?

Answer: Islam has listed the deeds that will make you closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ, [and which will make you attain His love and approval]. A selection must be made from among them in accordance with each person’s time and the situations and conditions he is in. The superior men of Tasawwuf have assigned their disciples such duties as will best suit them in their guidance. Hence, their picking out one or two of the various fruitful duties does not indicate that the ones not preferred are useless. What they stress concerning each useful practice, however, is purity of intentions. According to Imâm Ghazâlî ‘rahmatullâhi ’aleyh’, ikhlâs is the essence of every practice. Âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs command to serve Islam. A person who denies the merits of jihâd and learning is a zindiq.

Question: Shaikh Muhyiddîn Arabî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ states: “Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ was created from the remnants of the clay that was used for the creation of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. That was why he was made a next-worldly brother to Rasûlullah.” Can there be another merit superior to that?

Answer: That the Shaikhayn were higher (than Hadrat Alî) is inferable from Islam’s teachings. The sources to be consulted to in this respect are the Adilla-i-sher’iyya, i.e. the Book, the Sunnat, the Ijmâ’, and the Qiyâs. The hearts and the (spiritual explorations called) kashf of the great men of Tasawwuf cannot be documentary sources for shar’î (canonical) matters. None of the Islamic principles is based on (these spiritual states termed) kashf. Shaikh Muhyiddîn Arabî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ makes a list of the things that will bring a person closer to Allâhu ta’âlâ. He states that the grade of Siddîqiyyat, the highest one, belongs to Hadrat Abû Bakr, the grade of Muhaddithiyyat, (the second highest,) belongs to Hadrat ’Umar, and the grade of Uhuwwat belongs to Hadrat Alî. He writes also that the grade of Hawâriyyat belongs to Zubayr and the grade of Amânat belongs to Abû ’Ubayda. He cites many another grade. None of those grades is of the capacity to represent fadl-i-kullî by itself. At several places of the book Futûhât not only the grades of Wilâyat belonging to the Ashâb-i-kirâm but also their grades which make them similar to prophets are stated. It is written in detail (in the book) that those grades have been perpetuated after Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’, except for the fact that they are not prophets. The kind of superiority which we understand from the term ‘superiority’ is the latter kind of superiority, i.e. that which makes them similar to prophets. And betterness in that similarity is what makes the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhuma’ superior. This superiority is called fadl-i-kullî, which is explained at several places of the book Futûhât. It is observed in the final part of the sixty-ninth chapter of the book that Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ is compared to Ibrâhîm (Abraham) ‘alaihis-salâm’ in the recitation of “Allâhumma salli ’alâ ...,” although he is higher than the latter, its subtle reasons are explained throughout its pages, and the superiority of the grade of Siddîqiyyat is described at full length.

Allâhu ta’âlâ chooses some of His very much beloved slaves and sends them His special fayz. First He creates those slaves of His in a nature eligible and fit for the special pieces of fayz He is going to send them. By the same token, He created the earthen substances in Hadrat Alî’s body in a nature capable of receiving the fayz of nubuwwat like the earthen substances in the construction of the physical existence of Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’. Yet that superiority is not fadl-i-kullî. It is fadl-i-juz’î. It represents the superiorities peculiar to the grade of Wilâyat. It does not represent a similarity in prophethood.

Question: Great men of Tasawwuf profess that they have had dreams denoting Hadrat Alî’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ superiority. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “A Believer’s dream is one of the components of prophethood.” Doesn’t that indicate the superiority of Hadrat Alî?

Answer: There is not a single Islamic principle revealed in a dream. Our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated: “Hamd (praise and gratitude) be to Allâhu ta’âlâ, He has reinforced me with Abû Bakr and ’Umar.” It is stated in another hadîth-i-sherîf: “Abû Bakr and ’Umar are like my eyes and ears.” Such are the indications of fadl-i-kullî. Prophets’ ‘alaihimussalawâtu wattaslîmât’ Khalîfas must be like them. According to this faqîr, (i.e. in my understanding,) the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ are like the light-radiating layer around the sun. Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is like the moon which receives and reflects the lights radiated. Whereas the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ radiate the lights of the path of Nubuwwat, Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ radiates the lights of the path of Wilâyat. It is for this reason that our Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ stated, “If I were to choose a halîl [friend] for myself, I would choose Abû Bakr,” and “If a prophet were to come after me, ’Umar would certainly be a prophet,” and “Alî is from me. And I am from him.” This faqîr, [i.e. Hadrat Shâh Waliyyullah Dahlawî,] asked Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ spiritual entity during a (spiritual meditation termed) murâqaba: What is the reason for the Shaikhayn’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ superiority over Hadrat Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ despite his superiority in the honour of genealogy and in the sobriety of his judgments as well as his leadership of the orders of Tasawwuf? He blessed my soul with the following answer: “Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ has two blessed faces: One which is zâhir [visible, outward]; another one which is bâtin [invisible, inward]. His face which is zâhir administers justice among people, provides brotherhood, and shows the right path. In the performance of this duty, the Shaikhayn ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ are like his hands and feet. Through his other face, which is bâtin, he gives fayz to hearts. The Shaikhayn cooperate with him in this duty as well!” ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’.

Source of fayz and meanings were the lectures of Abdulhaqîm;
Home of divine closeness was the company of Abdulhaqîm.
Asylum for the wretched, medicine for all illnesses was Abdulhaqîm.
A treasure of irfân, a light of Subhân, a key to Qur’ân was Abdulhaqîm!

[61] Authorization, diploma, certificate of proficiency.
[62] Outward; of religious practices and acts of worship.
[63] Inward; of the heart and soul, spiritual.
[64] People who refuse to be affiliated to any of the four authentic Madhhabs in Islam; Hanafî, Mâlikî, Shâfi’î, and Hanbalî. Detailed information for the four Madhhabs, see The Sunnî Path and the five fascicles of Endless Bliss.
[65] Hadrat Muhammad’s ascent to heaven. Please see the fifty-sixth chapter of the first fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[66] Please see the seventh chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss for Hajj and ’Umra.
[67] Some âyats invalidated the rules, principles, commandments and prohibitions in other âyats previous to them. Those revocatory âyats are called nâsikh, while the ones whose rules they cancel are called mansûkh.
[68] Please see the eleventh chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss for information about azân.
[69] ’Uthmân bin Affân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ had the honour of marrying two of Rasûlullah’s blessed daughters, Ruqayya ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, who passed away at the age of twenty-two, and Umm-u-Ghulthum ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’ whom the Messenger of Allah married to Hadrat ’Uthmân after Hadrat Ruqayya passed away.
[70] To teach the commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ, encouraging to do the commandments and dissuading from committing the prohibitions.
[71] Not to set one’s heart on worldly matters, even if they are mubâh (permitted by Islam).
[72] Abstention from mushtabihât (doubtful things).
[73] (He) who has attained perfection in Islam and in spirituality.
[74] (He) who can guide others to perfection.
[75] Rizq means food preordained for a certain person.
[76] A bilateral cursing wherein two parties wish evil to the wrongful or mendacious one between them.
[77] Zâhid is the adjectival form of the noun ‘zuhd’. Accordingly, a zâhid person is one who has much zuhd.
[78] Please see the sixth chapter of the second fascicle of Endless Bliss for kinds of hadîth-i-sherîfs.
[79] The expression which is used in the original text is ‘to get barakat’. ‘Barakat’ means ‘abundance caused by blessedness’.
[80] The Qur’ân al-kerîm; revelation of the Qur’ân al-kerîm; messages which Allâhu ta’âlâ sent to His Messenger in âyats.
[81] A Muslim who performs Mut’a hajj is called a Mutamatti’ hadji, and one who performs Qirân hajj is a Qârîn hadji. Please see the seventh chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.