Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Revisions:
Contents
Table of Contents
2.CHAPTER TWO – WAS SHURA THE ACTUAL METHOD VIA WHICH THE PAST
KHALIFAS WERE APPOINTED?........................................................................................... 5
8.COPYRIGHT.......................................................................................................................... 62
Whilst we have Alhamdolillah addressed the main objections raised against the Shia doctrine of
Imamah by the Cyber Takfeeri’ite in our article:
Imamate; Divine giude in Islam
The article ”Imamah the Antithesis of Egalitarianism” written by Ibn al-Hashimi of the
Ahlelbayt.com website forms part of a more subtle attempt to appeal to a rational Sunni mind,
this subtle implication being that the Shia doctrine is ‘unfair’ contravening the framework of
equality upon which the Deen is based. At the same time the author has sought to present
what he deems the alternative approach to Imamate as a Sunni doctrine that allegedly
espouses freedom for all, wherein all have a say in the process and can attain the rank as
Imam over the Muslims. It almost sounds like an American speech on the aim for Muslims of
democracy in Iraq. By presenting ‘both sides of the coin’ he is hoping to unhinge the Shi’a
readership so they get sleepless nights thinking about how unfair the Imamate doctrine is, that
will ultimately lead to them embracing Sunnism, and to alienate Sunnis from Shiaism. As part of
his efforts, Ibn al-Hashimi has suppressed the actual Sunni stance that would evidence that
Imamate is anything but egalitarian in nature, and completely glossed over the various
mechanisms whereby a Sunni Muslim can attain the rank of Imamate. A fatal flaw that has
exposed the author’s ignorance of polemical discussion is easily identifiable upon analysis of this
article. Before one has the skills to take on the opposition, it is essential that one has a
complete understanding of his own belief system, after all it is only then that you can offer the
‘correct’ alternative to those that you deem misguided. How pathetic it is then that it is the
beliefs of his own Sunni house that leave him vulnerable and ultimately humiliated. In this
article Ibn al Hashimi has portrayed Sunni Islam as a land flowing with milk and honey. This is a
gross delusion and a lie, yes, we have no qualms in saying he has lied. The absurd Sunni
arguments on Imamate, which in fact divide Shia from Sunni, are presented herein. Much of his
material is indeed plagiarized from old Nasibi websites that we had already refuted …the usual
half-baked Sunni notions. We are not lying, read on if you wish to see Sunni Islam stripped
bare and naked and to see what it really says on Imamate, not what Ibn al-Hashimi’s
propaganda wishes it to say.
Whilst we shall InshaAllah address the issues raised in this article, we would urge our readers
to consult our article Imamate, Divine Guide in Islam first, so that one can better
appreciate the Shia stance, which Ibn al-Hashimi has misrepresented.
Before we begin, it is important that we quickly highlight the key points related to the Shia
doctrine of divine Imamah and why it is not permissible in Shia Islam for any immoral and
unjust egomaniac to become the Imam. We believe:
1. The Khalifa that succeeds the Prophet [s] can only be that person that after the death
of Muhammad [s] protects the Deen, he must be aloof from wrong doings and creating
Fitnah, and in its entirety this can only be attained by that person who is infallible.
2. Imamate is reserved for the most pious in the Ummah, those who excel in all areas of
the Deen and act without hypocrisy or lethargy upon it.
3. He is infallible and perfect amongst the Muslims, he will not be like ordinary men. Allah
[swt] alone decides on Imamate, and the rightful Imam is only that he whom the
Creator [swt] appoints.
4. Allah [swt] knows that which no one else does. He is best suited to rule who is best to
guide the Ummah through good and bad times, hence it is through the texts of the
Prophet [s], and this continues through the Imams, as even the bigoted Wahabi scholar
al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz (who ironically dedicated his life to refuting Shias
ironically) had to concede:
“Thus, it is the greatness of the Prophet [s] which is the fountainhead of
different kinds of Wilayah, which continuously flow through Ahl-ul-Bayt [as]
and Imamate means that each one of them appointed the other as his
successor.”
Tafseer Azizi, Surah al Haaqa, page 125-126 (Published by H. M Saeed Co.
Karachi)
Tuhfa Athna Ashari, page 338 (Noor Muhammad Kutub Khana, Karachi)
Yes this is what we believe as Shias, why is the great scholar Abdul Aziz agreeing with us while
Ibn al-Hashimi is not? It is because the former had more knowledge of even Sunni Islam. From
these criteria Allah [swt] provided the best Guides for the Ummah from the Ahl’ul bayt as] of
Muhammad [s].
We shall now set out to address the efforts of the Ahlelbayt.com (the website’s name is a
misnomer) to negate the divine right of the Ahl’ul bayt [as] to rule the Ummah, by presenting it
is as against the framework of equality upon which the Deen is based.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
All four of the rightly guided Caliphs were
selected by a system of Shurah (mutual
consultation); furthermore, the general public
gave their Bayat (pledge of allegiance) to show
their acceptance of each of these nominations. As
is apparent, this system of nomination was
egalatarian in spirit and consistent with fairness.
1. Reply One – There is no Shura on matters ruled upon in the Quran and
Sunnah, the concept of shura is bid’a – an innovation.
It is interesting to note that the author seeks to sell legitimacy of shura because this was
practiced by some of the Sahaba, yet he fails to provide any evidence of the legitimacy of this
method from the Qur’an or Sunnah of Muhammad [s]. This is because no such evidence exists.
Shur’a is a post-Prophet (saws) innovation by the companions. This is not surprising since Sunni
Islam is a product of history, and not the Qur’an and Sunnah. If shura was the correct method
via which to appoint an Imam, did Rasulullah [s] direct the Sahaba over this method? No.
Should he not have guided the Sahaba and established some Shura committee as a mechanism
for identifying and appointing the right candidate? If this was indeed the right method as Ibn
al-Hashimi is suggesting then why did Rasulullah [s] himself not lead by example and
implement this method of appointment? The failure of Rasulullah [s] to endorse this method,
rather not to even give any basic directions pertaining to Shura to appoint a successor serves as
the greatest proof that it has no basis under the Shariah. Shura to appoint an Imam is, by
definition an innovation (bid’a). Further, as far as shura goes, the issue is a double contradiction
in this matter. Not only is it innovation, but we also know that there is no shura in matters of
Islamic law. There is no shura about whether or not salat is obligatory, for example. As such,
how can there be any shura to determine whether or not it is obligatory to follow this individual,
or that individual? Allah [swt] says in his Glorious Book:
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed
a matter that they should have an option in their decision. And whoever disobeys
Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.” [33:36]
Sadly this is precisely what many of the Sahaba did after they turned their back on the explicit
and numerous injunctions by God and His Prophet [s] that Muhammad (saws)’s successor was
Ali [as], culminating in the declaration of Ghadhir Khumm, as evidenced by innumerable Sunni
sources and for which Sunnis scramble wildly to dilute the significance of. The above Surah
clearly states that the affairs that should be decided by “Shura” can only be those in which Allah
[swt] or the Messenger [s] has shown “no position”. This clearly excludes the idea of election /
selection of Imams, Khalifas of a Prophet, as this requires the leader being appointed by Allah
[swt], as we have previously demonstrated in the Imamate article. Imam Radhi in Tafseer
Kabeer Volume 4 page 445 stated:
لنه، اتفقوا على أن كل ما نزل فيه وحي من عند ال لم يجز للرسول أن يشاور فيه المة: المسألة الثالثة
إذا جاء النص بطل الرأي والقياس
“The third principle: There is an agreement that every thing that has been revealed
from Allah to the Messenger, it is not allowed for him to consult the Ummah because
if there is a Nass, then the opinion and conjecture (Qiyas) becomes void.”
When there is clear nass relating to the divine appointment of Maula Ali [as] then the Shura
that Ibn al-Hashimi is seeking to sell as legitimate has no validity whatsoever, it becomes an
error, one upon which was tragically built the Sunni version of Islam he is so keen to defend.
Imamate entails certain shar’ia obligations. If somebody is appointed by God, then he must be
obeyed, and that is a fiqh ruling. How can there be shura, then, to say that it is obligatory on us
to follow Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or whoever? There is no shura on such issues. The duty to follow a
leader is a matter for Allah [swt] to decide, and He [swt] did just that, after the Prophet [s] it
was obligatory for us to follow Imam ‘Ali [as] and the eleven Imams from his progeny [as].
Even if in their narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy on the issue of Hadith, the doctrine of
appointment of a successor by the Prophet (saw) is rejected by Sunni readers, the inescapable
fact remains - Shura is bid’a and this is an inescapable conclusion. It has no basis in the Qur’an
and Sunna, it came later in the post-prophet era and was a fabrication of the kings (caliphs)
who forged Sunni Islam as detailed later. In distinction, to Shias belief in Imamate is vouched
for by the Qur’an and Sunna whether the traditions are accepted as such or not by the Sunnis,
our system remains a superior system in the eyes of the Shias having the endorsement of God
and His Prophet (saws). Let us discuss these issues in more detail.
Ibn al Hashimi prides himself on trying to disprove quite pathetically the Shi’a doctrine of
Imamate from the Qur’an. To him the correct method for appointing an Imam was through
Shura. One would therefore presume that the correctness of this position can be evidenced
from the Qur’an. It tells us so much when we see Ibn al Hashimi arguing that appointing the
Imam through Shura is egalitarian and correct, because this was done historically in the case of
the rightly guided Khalifas. Let us see if this ‘legitimate method’ can be proven from the Qur’an.
Tell us Ibn al-Hashmi, is everything based upon consultation? Does Allah (swt) seek the
consultation of the people in His works? Is the creation of man and woman on the basis of our
consultation? Is rain, sunset, winds etc through the consultation process between the people
and their Creator (swt)? Do we decide whether a couple will or will not bear children? In the
same way that all these works of Allah (swt) are His (swt) alone, and man has no say in the
process, exactly the same is the case with when He sends Prophets and the Imams to guide the
Ummah after him (s). As we read in Holy Qur’an:
Allah chooses for Himself whom He wills, and guides unto Himself who turns to Him
in repentance and in obedience. (42:13)
This verse isn’t giving just a simple message for the common people, but He (swt) in fact sets
out His principle that it is not the public who chooses someone and then deems him to be the
one chosen by Allah [swt] rather its only Allah [swt] who chooses.
And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses, no choice have they (in any
matter). Glorified be Allah, and exalted above all that they associate as partners
(with Him).
Translated by Dr. MT Al-Hilali & Dr. MM Khan. V7.9
This verse makes it clear that certain ranks are only through the power and decision of the
Blessed Creator (swt). The station of Prophethood and Imamate are not in the hands of the
people – since they are both connected with implementing the works of Allah (swt), and hence
Allah (swt) knows who is best suited for this job.
“And indeed We gave Musa the Book and We did appoint with him Harun as an
Apostle and his Vizier” (25:35).
We see from this verse that Musa (as) was appointed a Prophet by Allah (swt). Why did He
(swt) not leave the appointment of a Vizier in the hands of the Ummah, who could appoint on
the basis of consultation? Would that not have been egalitarian in spirit? It is interesting that
Sunnis say that Rasulullah (s) left no successor; rather the Ummah was free to do so, and
(according to Ibn al Hasihmi) they did so accordingly via the democratic principles of Shura! Yet
we see from the Qur’an that the Vizier of Prophet Musa (as) was appointed by Allah (swt), how
can the Prophet (s) who is the best of the creation and the most exalted among all humans
including Musa [as] leave the issue of appointment to the public and not Allah [swt]?
[Shakir 21:73] And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command.
This makes it clear that the appointments of the Imams are the right of Allah (swt), Shura does
not even come into the equation and He chooses whoever He (swt) wants. That whom He (swt)
chooses is the legitimate Imam.
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which
he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And
also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the
reach of evil-doers." [Yusufali 2:124]
Prophet Ibrahim (as) was already a Prophet but had (following the successful completion of
these tasks) attained the rank of Imamate. The verse makes it clear that Allah (swt) appoints
the Imam, not the people, He (swt) appoints whoever he likes as the Prophet or Imam.
If Ibn al Hasihmi objects saying that this refers to Prophethood then why did Allah (swt) not say
"I will make thee a Prophet to the Nations"?
If Ibn al Hashimi attests that Imamate as a divine rank refers only to the appointment of
Prophets then allow us to present the divine appointment of a non Prophet. We read in Surah
Baqarah 246 - 247
YUSUF ALI: Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel
after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint
for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if
ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we
refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes
and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back,
except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those who do
wrong.
Their Prophet said to them: "(Allah) hath appointed Talut as king over you." They
said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to
exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said:
"(Allah) hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with
knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth.
When the Israelites expressed a desire to have an Imam to lead them into Jihad, they went
directly to the Prophet, requesting that such a leader be appointed. If the duty to appoint the
Imam was the self determination of the people they would have never turned to the Prophet
with such a request, rather they would have themselves appointed an Imam, that is proof that
the Imam is a divine appointment, Shura does not even come into the equation. The Bani Israil
were fully aware of this, it was the established, known Sunnah that Allah (swt) appoints that
individual that excels in knowledge and bravery amongst the Ummah.
The next portion of the verse Their Prophet said to them: "(Allah) hath appointed Talut
as king over you" is clear evidence of Divine appointment, as it demonstrates that the
appointment of the Imam, is not subject to the personal discretion of the Prophet (as), it is the
right of Allah (swt) alone, the Prophet is responsible for conveying the divine appointment to
the people.
When the Prophet (s) is challenged over the appointment, he makes clear that the Divine
appointment was based on knowledge and bravery that again proves the doctrine of divine
appointment on Imamate on the basis of superiority in the Ummah. There is nothing in this
verse that would support the Ibn al-Hashimi theory that Imamate of non Prophets is valid when
it is exercised through a Shura process, where the Ummah have a say in the process!
“God had promised you those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will
certainly appoint them Khalifas (thukhalifa) as He appointed successors (thukhalifa)
those before him” (Surah Nur 55)
Who wrote the Qur’an? God did, not shura. So tell us Ibn al Hashimi were those that Allah (swt)
termed Khalifas appointed through the egalitarian method of Shura or not for such a notion
contradicts the sense of this ayat of the Qur’an itself? Ibn Hashimi is dangerously close to
apostasy. God appoints the khalifa - he says so himself in the above ayat and many times more
in the Book, as we shall show below. Yet only Shia Islam believes through Imamate that God
appoints the Khalifa, Sunni Islam follows the innovations of the companion-kings who appointed
themselves rulers (even shura when taken was taken at the point of a sword – give bayat or
die).
We read that Adam (as) was appointed khalifa by Allah (swt) not by man when we read the
famous verses concerning the Creation of Adam (as) in the Qur’an:
[Shakir 2:30] And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the
earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it
and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely
It may be argued by those without firm faith in the Book and who seek to twist the words of
God as they stand opposed to their ancestor’s beliefs that the word ‘Khalifa’ refers to the
prophethood of Adam [as] as he was not the Khalifa (successor) of someone else, he was the
first human being on earth. Then we need to understand the meaning of the word Khalifa.
According to the Hans-Wehr English-Arabic dictionary page 257, it does not only mean
successor, it means “Vicar, deputy; successor” . In this context it means succeed, occupying
position, such as appoint someone to occupy a position. Thus Khaleefa does not equate with
inheriting succession, it can also mean the first in a line of succession. Besides, God does not
say prophet, He says Khaleefa, so let us move on from this ridiculous argument – if I use the
name Peter I mean Peter not John, and if God says Khaleefa He means Khaleefa not Prophet,
and God does not make mistakes.
We have seen in Nur verse 55 before that God appoints the Khaleefa, a fact that flies directly in
the face of any concept of shura and which in fact undermines the authority of any caliph-king
not appointed by God and hence Sunni Islam itself. One pathetic defence hinted at by the Sunni
Imam Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti may be that when God says He appoints the khalifa, in some vague
way this translated into the shura that led to the appointment of Abu Bakr by the Muslims when
they gave him bayat (assuming this was even shura, which it was not since it was extracted at
the point of a sword, but the principle is the same). But this ayat, 2:30, negates the fact that
the divine doctrine of appointment can be translated into the establishment of a khalifa by
anyone other than God himself – it is direct and clear-cut – God means God, not anyone else
and not the shura process. Think very carefully and with all your attentiveness on this ayat. It’s
actually quite straightforward and piercing what is being said here. Here in 2:30 God reiterates
that He appoints the khalifa. He is talking about Adam (of course) here. Now, since there was
no nation or Ummah when Adam was created as he was the first man, then how can it be
interpreted that God’s command that HE appoints the khalifa translates into the shura by the
nation? It cannot as there was no nation in the time of Adam (as), there was no other physical
human other than Adam (as). In fact, when Iblees (Satan) opposed the command to appoint
Adam (as) as Khaleefa (note the devil was thrown out not because he was jealous of Adam, but
because he was jealous of the fact Adam was made khalifa whom He had to bow his head
below), He was thrown out of God’s presence for refusing to accept God’s khalifa, and said he
would tempt humans on this matter above all till Judgment Day – now look at the history of
man – every prophet Khaleefa of Banu Israel had enemies inspired by Iblees, and God’s choice
of Khaleefa through Muhammad (saws)’s verdict on Ali (as) was also attacked and the Muslims
divided into factions on this – only the Shia followed the Divinely appointed Khalifa and
successor Ali (as), the rest followed their own egos, and egos are the greatest temptation of
Iblees! And nor did God listen to the angels who also questioned His decision to appoint Adam
(as) khalifa. The attitudes and opinions of these other creations beyond the human nature was
irrelevant, only God’s will counted. God dismissed the majority of creations and threw the
egalitarian views of the angels and their and Iblis’s attempt at shura and consultation to appoint
a Khaleefa in the rubbish-bin of Creation. Allah (swt) admonished the angels’ attempts at shura
and consultation on this matter saying he hated it and gave his reason as: “Surely I know
what you do not know” and they obeyed, and He cursed for eternity Iblees who continued
to uphold the belief that shura and consultation decide the khilafat and God vows to throw
Iblees and those like him in the fire for this failure and its consequences, and this would be the
majority of men. This negates the view that the appointment of a khalifa by the Ummah or
companions through shura or consultation (and indeed any non-divine means) can be
construed as being in any way divine and shatters the legitimacy of shura or consultation in this
process as a challenge to God’s words Himself. It is contradictory to the divine commandment
which echoes through the aeons of man since God condemned shura and consultation in favor
of His decision in appointing the khalifa. This is a shocking unveiling of the true level of
disobedience of the early companions to God even though the religion they created was that of
the majority of Muslims. The only person for whom divine appointment to the khilafat by God
and His Prophet is advanced is Ali (as) and the other 12 Imams of the Shias who are the caliphs
to the Seal of Prophets.
“O Dawud verily We have you a khalifa in the earth” (The Qur’an 38:26)
Again if this referred to his appointment of Prophet why did Allah (swt) not use the term
Prophet? Why did he use the term Khalifa? Why does God in the Holy Book keep coming again
and again to the word KHALIFA and the fact HE appoints the khalifa? This was because of the
same reasons we highlighted above because of the trend through human history, here with the
people of Dawud (David) (as), in which Iblees is tempting people by trying to get them to
oppose God’s chosen leader. And it is in the Qur’an as Allah (swt) obviously both KNEW it was
on this issue the Muslims would divide and so He would note it even more in the Qur’an to
guide them to the saved sect – the Twelver Shia who believe as in the Quranic injunction that
God appoints the khalifa (Imam), and the Sunni who deviated and followed the self-styled post-
prophet companion-kings who founded their own institution based upon a variety of modes of
appointment, not one of them divine. Hadhrath Dawud (as) was the Khalifa of his father, he
inherited the mantle of leadership after him (as). If Shura to appoint a successor is the correct
method, then why did Allah (swt) appoint Dawud (as) without shura - this prevented the
Ummah from the opportunity to decide on the matter themselves. Was the appointment
egalitarian in nature? Clearly not, yet Allah (swt) brought it on Himself (swt) to appoint the
Khalifa.
We hence discern quite clearly from the Qur’an that the appointment of a khalifa is non-
egalitarian. It may not sound politically correct in today’s world, but that is the truth – khilafat is
non-egalitarian, not open to all and sundry, and nor is Ibn Hashmi’s shura at the point of a
sword open to all candidates, as he would like people to believe and as we shall later show.
Indeed, while in Shia Islam God appoints the khalifa, all of whom were pure and pious men
whether from Banu Israel or Banu Hashim, in Sunni Islam what is called shura is not only
innovation but a ruse for political corruption as we shall come to (regrets if anyone feelings are
hurt, that is not the purpose, but fact is fact…the early Islamic caliphate was a politically corrupt
house even if it in lived Abu Bakr followed by Omar, after all it was a submission to the
temptation of Iblees who rebelled against the caliphs appointed by Allah (sawt)).
Further evidence of the non-egalitarian doctrine of appointment can be gauged from the
appointment of the third Khalifa mentioned in the Qur’an, Hadhrath Harun (as). When Musa
(as) went to Mount Tur, he appointed Harun as Khalifa directly.
“...And Musa said unto his brother Haroon: Take my place (as khalifa) among the
people.” (The Qur’an 7:142)
In English the one Arabic word “ukhulfni” chosen by Allah in 7:142 has been translated, as
above, as “Take my place...” . “ukhulfni” is the root origin of the Arabic word “Khalifa”
(Caliph). The indirect transliteration is simply from a Sunni translator trying to hide the word
khalifa. Musa (as) is acting on God’s instructions as His prophet.
Prophet Musa (as) didn’t apply any egalitarian principle, he did not tell the people to adopt
Shura to appoint a Khalifa whilst he was absent. Rather than adopt a principle that Ibn al
Hashimi dictates as fair and correct, he appointed Haroon directly, without any consultation
from his people. The Ummah were given no say in the process. Even for this short period of
absence of forty days, Musa (as) ensured that he has a Khalifa to lead the people in his
absence. In Tafsir Maarif ul Quran, under his commentary of this verse, Mufti Muhammad Shafi
Deobandi stresses the importance of appointing a deputy. Under the heading ‘Making one’s
deputy when needed’ he writes as follows:
“The Prophet Musa (as) made it a point to appoint Sayyidna Harun (as) as his
deputy when he intended to leave for the mount of Sinai and said that he should
take responsibility of his people in his absence. This makes it imperative for those
who hold some responsible office that they appoint someone to look after the work
in their absence.
If it is imperative for those in office to appoint a deputy in their absence is it not of greater
importance when the person in office is permanently departing from this world? Was the
Prophet (saws) not fearful that because of his disputes, problems that would occur after him?
The Sunni doctrine of non-appointment will be mentioned though it is dealt with thoroughly in
another work of ours. The cornerstone of contemporary Sunni Islam for hundreds of years is
the doctrine of non-appointment. It is the absurdist of absurdities. It is that the Holy Prophet
(saws) made no arrangements for his succession – despite knowing his departure from this
world approached and despite it being mandatory to make a will in Islam, neither did the Holy
Prophet (saws):
1. appoint a successor
2. arrange a system of succession e.g. council, voting, verbal direction
Yet EVERY leader has done one or both of the above as his departure from the world
approaches as without a leader or system by which one be appointed society is left in a state of
anarchy – leaderless – and that is the lowest and most desperate state of any society, so low
that it ceases to be a true society. And while even the most incompetent leaders in human
history have made arrangements for a succession, Sunni Islam would have us believe our great
and enlightened Prophet Mohammad (saws) left none – despite him being even more in a
position of responsibility to people - Mohammad (saws) was the Seal of Prophets, he was
contending with civil war in central Arabia with apostates marching on Madina, foreign armies
invading from Byzantium necessitating him dispatching the army of Usama, pus the day to day,
hour to hour, minute to minute problems of governing a nation as its supreme leader in all
affairs. The Sunni world however believes Mohammad (saws) did neither despite this great
mantle of responsibility – neither did he appoint a successor or leave a system of succession –
he did nothing, issuing no guidance though he was in fact more qualified to guide than any
man. Instead the companions took over, and did what they had to. Shia Islam believes
Mohammad (saws) on behalf of God as His Seal of Prophets (saws) was a most responsible
leader who in accordance with these ayats we are discussing with regard to God’s direction in
general and specific direction to His prophets:
1. appointed a successor to the Seal of Prophets, mentioning Ali (as) as the Imam to
succeed him in this role abundant times culminating in the formal declaration at
Ghadhir Khumm
2. arranged a system of succession – non-egalitarian appointment in the manner of the
Imams of Banu Israel mentioned in the Qur’an – Imamate of 12 Imams from Ali (a) to
Mohammad Mahdi (as).
The astonishing Sunni doctrine of non-appointment suggests a missing link in Islam and as it is
so fundamental it is not surprising that the rest of the Sunni outlook is also prone to absences
from reality and rationality entering the level of the absurd frequently. On the other hand the
Shia doctrine is fully vouched for by the Qur’an.
Musa (as) foresaw of such a risk, even though he was leaving temporarily for Mount Tur, and
yet Muhammad (s) it is suggested never envisaged such a risk despite the world fragmenting
around him in his own lifetime with apostates rising in central Arabic against him and Byzantium
invading. Amazingly the Sahaba are praised for their foresightedness by not attending the
funeral of the Prophet (s) and giving the succession of Muhammad (s) a greater priority, a sign
to many of their base insincerity and hunger for power over and above all else (in short Abu
Bakr walked out on the funeral of the Holy Prophet (saws) to lead a coup d’etat and returned
with a crown on his head as King of the Arabs, and we are expected to applaud this in Sunni
Islam). Interestingly Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehalvi states in Izalatul Khifa, page 52:
This certainly was not the case with the appointment of Abu Bakr. Ponder over the concept
carefully. The Khalifa is one that takes the position of another, one that implements the work
on behalf of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). When God appoints a Prophet as Khalifa, he is
implementing the Khilafat of God, and when a Khalifa is appointed following the Prophet (s), he
is implementing the work of that Prophet (s). In both circumstances the appointment of both is
the right of Allah (swt) exclusively and the term ‘Khalifa’ is common, and it refers to one that
represents Allah (swt) or his Prophet, and the appointment of both are by Allah (swt) alone. No
group whether they be people of power of influence, through ijmaa or Shura, have a say in the
process, they were never allowed to appoint a Prophet and likewise they have no right to
appoint the successor to the Seal of Prophets (saws), this right remains exclusive to Allah (swt)
alone. Allah [swt] in the verse cited below chose the word ‘Khalifa’ which is general and didn’t
use the words ‘prophet’ and this was to show that whether it is the Khilafat of Allah [swt] or the
Khilafat of any prophet, its is Allah alone who reserves the right to make one . Allah has clearly
stated:
033.036[YUSUFALI]:
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by
Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys
Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
For this reply it is apt to also address a challenge thrown down to us by the same Ibn al
Hashimi in his article ‘Why Prophet Muhammad Did Not Have a Wasi’:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
It should also be noted that the concept that
“every Messenger had a Wasi” is simply false; the
Shia have simply named two Messengers who
were alive at the time of two other Messengers.
Let them back up their claim: there are twenty-
five Messengers mentioned in the Quran; how
many of them had any such “Wasi” and if so what
were their names? Simply naming two
Messengers who were coincidentally alive at the
same time as two others, does not at all prove
the Shia’s doctrine. Where in the Quran is the
word “Wasi” mentioned? In fact, the entire
concept of “Wasi” is alien to Islam and it was
brought into Islam by the likes of Ibn Saba whose
purpose was to destroy the Finality of
If anything this proves the shocking lack of knowledge that this self proclaimed defender of the
man made khalifa system is. All this Nasibi could have done was pick up any book of Islamic
history to see that the doctrine of appointing a Wasi, rather than being alien to Islam, was the
Sunnah of past Prophets!
If we look at the annals of Islamic history, we will find that the Khalifas of Prophets, and their
executors were not appointed through any form of consultation process. They were divinely
appointed. We will consider accepting the principle of Shura for the Khalifas of Sunni Islam as
valid if it can be proved that previous Khalifas were appointed via the same process. If we can
however prove that the Khalifas and Wasis (inheritors) of the Prophets were appointed by them
directly, then the very substance of the Sunni argument falls apart, unless Sunni Muslims wish
to deny intellectual reasoning. We proved this however from the Qur’an in the preceding
sections, even pointing out how Sunni translators have sought to subdue the use of the word
khalifa by God through mistranslating the original Arabic text so that a non-Arabic reader is
misled. Here we show the proofs that Imamate comes from God as a divine covenant in Sunni
history and which is reminiscent of the covenant between prophets and God in other sacred
texts (Bible and Torat) i.e. is not a new theme.
We have already shown from the Qur’an that Allah (swt) appointed Adam as Khalifa. What
followed was the doctrine of direct appointment. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 1
page 324:
“When Adam was about to die, he called his son Seth and appointed him as his
heir…He wrote his last will addressed to him. Seth reportedly was the legatee of his
father Adam, so after Adam’s death, political leadership fell to him”.
History of Tabari Volume 1 page 324
“When Seth fell ill, he reportedly appointed his son Enosh as his legatee”.
History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 335
“After the passing of his father Seth, Enosh took over the political administration of
the realm and the guidance of the subjects under his control in place his father
Seth”
History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 336
“Enosh begot Kenan and numerous other children. Kenan was his legatee. He begot
Mahalalel and other children in addition. Mahalalel was his legatee. He begot Jared
(Yarid) and other children in addition. Jared was his legatee. He begot Enoch – that
is, Prophet Idris –and other children in addition. Enoch begot Methuselah and other
children in addition. Methuselah was his legatee. He begot Lamech and other
children in addition. Lamech was his legatee”.
History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 336
About Jared (Yarid) mentioned in between in the last reference, Tabari expands on him:
“He was the legatee and successor of his father, according to what his father
Mahalalel had set down in his last will addressed to him when he made him his
“He was the legatee of his father Jared and was exhorted to act in accordance with
what his forefathers had stated in their last wills addressed to him, and to each
other”.
History of Tabari, Volume 1 page 343
These last two explanations about Jared and his son Enoch are clearly pointing out the
phenomenon of ‘Nass’ that we discussed earlier in the article.
In the list of messengers we cited earlier from Tabari, the last one was Lamech who was the
father of Prophet Noah [as]. Now if we move on to the appointment of Noah’s successor, Ibn
Athir has recorded:
كبيت له بابان دخلت من أحدهما وخرجت من الخر:كيف رأيت الدنيا قال :ولما حضرت نوح•ا الوفاة قيل له
.وأوصى إلى ابنه سام وكان أكبر ولده
When time of death approached Hadrath Noah, people asked to him: ‘How did you
find the word?’. He replied: ‘Like a house which have two doors, I entered from one
of those while I exit from the other and appointed my son Saam as my legatee’
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 1 page 29
Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) stated in his book ‘Subul al-Huda
wa al-Reshad’ Volume 1 page 314:
وكان ولد قبل الطوفان بثمانية وتسعين، لما حضرت نوحا الوفاة أوصى إلى ولده سام:قال النووي رحمه ال
إنه كان وصي أبيه وإنه ولي أهل الرض: قال ابن هشام. ويقال كان سام بكره،سنة.
Al-Nawawi (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) said: ‘When death came to Noah, he
appointed his son Saam as his legatee, he (Saam) was born before the flood by 98
years. It has been said that Saam is his elder son’. Ibn Hisham said: ‘He was the
Wasi of his father and he is the Wali of the people of earth’.
Subul al-Huda wa al-Reshad, Volume 1 page 314
Ibrahim [as] too appointed his Wasi as recorded by Mohammad bin Khawand Shah (d. 903 H)
in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 52:
“When the angel of death came to Ibrahim in order to seize his soul, Ibrahim
demanded some time and specified a time for seizing his soul. Then he got busy in
some religious and worldly matters. He deemed the completion of those matters as
most important, and He appointed his son Isaac as his Wali and Khalifa in Syria.”
According to Mohammad bin Khawand Shah (d. 903 H) in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 pages 62-63
Isaac appointed his son Yaqub as his Wasi. Then:
وأن يعقوب أوصى إلى يوسف عليه السلم
Then:
وأوصى إلىأخيه يهوذا
Prophet Ayub [as] too appointed his Wasi. As we read in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 100:
“Close to his death, he appointed Homal as his Wasi and Wali, who was the most
pious among his sons”
“When Ayub reached to the age of 93, he appointed his son Homel as his legatee
before death, and God sent after him his son Bashr- son of Ayub as a prophet and
called him Zu-lkifl and ordered him to propagate the oneness of God, he lived in
Syria for the whole of his life till he died, he died when he was 75 years old, and
Beshr appointed his son Ebsan as his legatee”
Tarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 195
"Then Moses set out, making Aaron his vice-regent over the Children of Israel…”.
History of Tabari, English translation Volume 3 page 72
But Harun [as] died during the lifetime of Musa [as] thus Musa [as] once again appointed his
Wasi as recorded in Rauzatus Safa, Volume 1 page 128:
“On the 7th of the month of Azaar, Musa gathered his people and conducted a huge
gathering, He [as] then appointed Yusha as his Khalifa and Wasi, after giving Bani
Israil into the protection of Allah, He [as] handed them over to Yusha and instructed
him to look after their affairs. After declaring the obedience and Hujjah of Yusha on
them, Musa [as] said to them: ‘Among the people of God, I have appointed a man as
Khalifa over you who is distinguished from you in terms of sincerity and have also
taken Allah and his angels as witness. You people should not be careless about my
will”
Then:
ا£اه ال فاستخلف على بني إسرائيل كالب بن يوفن£ توف£ثم
“Allah appointed Kalb bin Yuftana (Caleb b. Jephunneh) as Khalifa over Bani Israil”
Tarikh Kamil, Volume 1 page
“Yusha bin Nun called Kalb bin Yaftana and gave him caliphate and died after
making him his Wasi and vicegerent”
Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 134
“Caleb b. Jephunneh was the one in charge of the affairs of the Israelites after
Joshua b. Nun, then Ezekiel b. Buzi after him…”
History of Tabari, English translation Volume 3 page 118
Then we read:
“When the signs of death appeared to Kalb bin Yaftana, he handed over the
Iliyas [a]s too appointed his Wasi, as we read in Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 138:
“One day Allah [swt] revealed to Iliyas [as] that he was to hand over the caliphate
to Yasi’e”
Then we read:
“When Yas’e realized that it (death) was imminent, he called Zul Kifl and handed
over the caliphate to him and then gave his soul to God”
The successor of Hadrath Sh’eya was also not appointed by general public rather Allah [swt]
appointed him, as we read in Tarikh Tabari, Volume 1 page 320:
استخلف ال عز وجل على بني إسرائيل بعد شعيا رجل منهم يقال له ياشية بن أموص
After Sh’eya, Allah [swt] appointed a man from Bani Israil namely Yashebah bin
Amus”
Prophet Isa [as] too appointed his successor on the orders of Allah [swt] rather than his nation
interfering into the matter:
“Amongst the ‘wills’ left by Isa [as] a will was: ‘Allah has instructed me to appoint
Shma’un (Simon) as caliph over you’. The people accepted his caliphate”
Rauzatul Safa, Volume 1 page 154
We see that Jesus’ companions had NO say in the matter – God told Jesus to appoint Simon
Peter his successor as Imam and Jesus complied, just as Mohammad (saws) would do the same
with Ali (as).
We see from these examples from Prophet Adam [as] until Isa [as] each appointed their
successor directly, as instructed by Allah [swt]. There is no evidence that previous Prophets and
their Successors (whether prophets or khalifas) were appointed by the Ummah via consultation
(Shura). A doctrine of appointment that Ibn al Hashimi deems ‘non egalitarian’ was the Sunnah
of past Prophets. Why did this, without reason change when Prophet Muhammad (s) passed
away? Of course it did not. Each past Prophet (s) openly declared who their successor would
be, there is no evidence for abrogation of this practice with Muhammad (s)? This is all the more
unbelievable when one considers this verse:
[YUSUFALI: 033.062]
(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No
change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
Such has been) the practice of Allah already in the past: no change wilt thou find in
the practice of Allah.
Does Allah (swt) not say that no change will you see in the Sunnah – so why did this one
change according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah? Certainly it didn’t. The fact that all previous Prophets
appointed their successors directly as instructed by Allah [swt] and there is no change in the
“These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance” (6:90)
The verse asks Prophet Muhammad [s] to follow what previous prophets did. Mufti Muhammad
Shaafi Deobandi in Tafsir Maarif ul Quran, Volume 3 page 411 says as follows in his
commentary of this verse:
“What then, would be the meaning of asking the Holy Prophet (s) to follow the way
of the past Prophets and act in accordance with it? Keeping in view other Quranic
verses and narrations of Hadith, the answer here is that the command here does not
apply to the following of the way of past prophets in all partial and subsidiary
aspects of injunctions. In fact, the purpose is to adhere to the basic principles of
religion which include Tauhid (Oneness of Allah) Risalah (Prophethood) and Akhirah
(Hereafter) as has been their way. They never changed in the law of any Prophet.
From Sayidina Adam (as) to the Last of all Prophets (s), all Prophets have been
adhering to one belief and one way”
If the Prophet (s) was being told to adhere to the Sunnah of the previous Prophets that
remained the same throughout i.e. the generic theme that all followed, then exactly the same
goes for the practice of appointing a successor. We have proven from the books of Tareekh
that appointing a successor was through one sole method, that of direct appointment. We will
once again quote the last sentence of Mufti Muhammad Shaafi “From Sayidina Adam (as) to
the Last of all Prophets (s), all Prophets have been adhering to one belief and one
way.” Hence, Prophet Muhammad [s] indeed didn’t abandon the guidance of previous prophets
and when He [s] was instructed "And warn your tribe of near kindred..." (26: 214), He [s]
summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:
“Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq-
Rabeea bin Najed narrated that a man came to Ali and said: Oh commander of
believers, why only you inherited your cousin without your uncle? He (Ali) replied:
The messenger of Allah invited the children of Abdulmutalib and he cooked for them
food, they ate till they get fulfilled and the food remained as if no one had touched
it, then he (the prophet) brought water and all of them drank from it, but the water
remained as if no one had touched it or drank from it.
Then he (the prophet) said: ‘Oh children of Abdulmutalib, I have been sent to you
specially and to the people in general, and you saw the sign of that, therefore who
among you give baya to be my brother, my companion, my inheritor and my
minister.’
No one responded for that, hence I responded and I was the youngest among them,
he (the prophet) said: ‘Sit down’ for three times. I responded and He say ‘Sit down’,
till the third time he clapped by his hand on my thigh and said: ‘You are my brother,
companion, inheritor and minister’. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.”
Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85
al-Fadal bin Sahl: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p11). Afan bin Muslim:
Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p679). Abu Awana: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p282). Uthman bin al-Mughira: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p665). Abu Sadeq al-Azdi: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib
al-tahdib, v2, p417). Rabeea bin Najed: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1,
p298).
If Ibn al Hashimi tries to argue that the doctrine of Khilafat does not come under this then
Surah Nur destroys such a notion since Allah (swt) takes personal responsibility to appoint
Khalifas as he had done in the past. Let us look at that verse again:
“God had promised you those of you who believe and do good deeds that he will
So was Adam appointed through some Shura process involving discussions between the Creator
and his Angels? Was Dawood (as) appointed through some secret meeting inside a small
meeting room? Was Harun (as) appointed through a Shura committee before Musa (as) set out
to collect the Ten Commandments? The answer is no, all were appointed divinely.
No previous Prophet (s) allowed his successor to be appointed via Shura, he appointed his
successor publicly during his lifetime. Rasulullah (s) would never have left an issue as important
as Khilafat to the choice of the people through Shura. He just like the Sunnah of past Prophets
declared his Khalifa before he left this earth. We believe that he appointed Imam Ali (as).
5. Reply Five - According to Sunni sources Rasulullah (s) said that Allah
(swt) designates leadership
The early books that deal with Seerah and Tarikh record the invitation of Rasulullah to the
Makkan tribes to embrace Islam, and support him. Some placed a conditional acceptance of the
offer provided they be given the station of Khilafat after the death of the Prophet (s). Rasulullah
(s) stated explicitly that he could not agree to any such condition, rather this was a matter that
Allah (swt) alone rules on. In this regards we read in the History of Tabari Volume 6 page121:
He went to the Banu Amir b. Sa’saa’ah called them to God and offered himself to
them. One of them called Bayharah Bin Firas addressed at him, “By God if I could
take this young man from Quraysh I could conquer all the Arabs with him”. Then he
said, “Do you think that if we follow you and God gives you victory over your
opponents we shall have the command after you?”. He replied “Command belongs
to God, who places it where He wills”.
This narration informs us that the Arab mentality at the time, they requested a share of the
command ‘Amr’ namely a right to leadership after him (s). The reply of Rasulullah (s) to the
Kuffar leaves us with no doubt that the decision to appoint the Imam to succeed Rasulullah (s)
is based upon the appointment by Allah (swt) alone. If Imamate that succeeds the Prophet (s)
was a right to the people, then why didn’t the Prophet (s) say ‘This matter will be left in the
hands of the people, who will be given free to devise a process for appointing whoever they
liked? The reply given by Rasulullah (s) renders the doctrine of man made appointed through
methods such as self appointment, ijmaa, shura null and void.
6. Reply Six – The founding fathers of Sunni Imamate were not appointed
through Shura
Turning to the assertion itself the advocacy skills of these Nawasib is so poor that they advance
defenses for the hero clients that their posthumous clients never themselves even claimed, part
of the cult of grossly exaggerated and unjustifiable reverence for the institution of the
companions. Don’t take our word for it, allow us to produce the testimony of the chief architect
of Saqifa, Umar ibn al Khattab – whose comments negate any suggestion of the legitimacy of
the Shura system, for Umar himself notes that it was a system of might is right. Shura would
suggest that people enter into some system of consultation to appoint a Khalifa, legitimacy is
based on some group exercise whereby they collectively arrive at decision over the best man.
This certainly did not occur in the case of Abu Bakr. The debate that took place in Saqifa was
between the Ansar and three Muhajirin present in the thatched house of Saqifa (a former
gambling den, brothel and liquor house on the outskirts of Madina where it was alleged such
evil things still took place hidden away from the authorities – we are not saying the Sahaba
were drinking there at the time of the meeting, but this is the nature of the venue for the
meeting – it was a sordid venue far away from where pious Muslims might chance upon
matters). Umar recommended Abu Bakr be given the bayya and others followed suit. There was
no consultation with any other Sahabi, esteemed figures like Ali [as], Ibn Abbas (ra), Talha,
Zubayr and others were never party to any form of consultation process. They didn’t even seek
their opinions before setting out to the Saqifa. Umar sought to curb any efforts to replicate his
method of appointment because it was devoid of consultation, saying:
… I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should
die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not
deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given
suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the
people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu
Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you
without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom
the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be
killed.
Sahih Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540
Umar was making it clear that Abu Bakar’s election was a ‘sudden’ thing, devoid of invitation
and consultation, and any efforts to repeat it would result in death. Curiously this penalty
wasn’t devised till Umar became Khalifa, again in the absence of Shura. We have his own
testimony when he responded to pressure to appoint a Khalifa:
If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He
meant Abu Bakr.)
Sahih Muslim Kitab al Amara Book 020, Number 4485
Notice that there is no shura in this statement, Umar is making it clear that his rise to power
was through the direct appointment of Abu Bakr. The Sunni world is proud to say that as Abu
Bakr lay dying on his deathbed, he said Umar would succeed him and that is how Umar became
the second khalifa. The word of one man is not shura or a democratic process. So any attempt
by Sunni Islam to pretend the appointment of their Khulafa-e-rashideen does not amount to
shura, it is a conception of their imagination, with the exception somewhat ironically of Imam
Ali [as] and Imam Hasan [as] appointed by general elections.
Ibn al-Hashimi has therefore lied to the Sunnis Muslims reading his article that the khulafa-e-
rashideen were appointed by shura – how can Abu Bakr appointing Umar be shura (it was one
king proclaiming his best friend the next king – no one else voted, it was Abu Bakr’s command
that Umar succeed him, and that was that – no election, no committee, no constitutional or
tribal process, nothing else).
Truly, Ibn al-Hashimi ’s gift is in the ability to make old wives stories superficially believable.
When it came to the appointment of the third Khalifa, this was again formulated by Umar (the
godfather of Sunni Islam), and it was at this point that for the first time a primitive but corrupt
and rigged version of the shura system was invented to appoint the Imam. Prior to this there
was no concept of the Shura Ibn Hashimi wants us to believe in – it’s simply Sunni fairytales.
This process was the mastermind of the ijtihad of Umar, it never existed previously. Those who
uphold the doctrine of appointing a Khalifa without justification from the Qur’an and Sunnah
advance this Umar’s method as the correct one, even though neither Rasulullah [s] nor Abu
Bakr implemented this method. This was not a concept that Umar was completely happy with,
rather he viewed a lesser alternative to appointment by text. We have his frank admission:
“… If my term overtakes me, and Abu Ubaydah al Jarrah is still alive, then I would
appoint him as Khalifa. If my Lord asked me, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘Every Prophet has a trustworthy
(companion), and my trustworthy companion is Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah’. If my
time overtakes me and Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah has died, I would appoint Mu’adh
ibn Jabal as Khalifas. If my Lord asked me ‘Why did you appoint him as a Khalifah’, I
would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying
‘He will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection a distance in front of the men of
knowledge’. They had both died during his Khalifah”.
Tarikh'ul Khulafa, page 135
According to Umar had these people been alive, the notion of Shura would not have even come
into the equation, he would have appointed them all directly. He was openly advocating
appointing people through nass, so where does that leave the doctrine of shura? This admission
proves that the shura process that Ibn al-Hashimi worships was not even fully supported by
Umar!
Coming to the process the Umar engineered there is little evidence to suggest that a
mechanism that condemned dissenting voices to death could ever be deemed egalitarian in
nature! When he was dying we read his directions:
“To Suhayb he said ‘Lead the people in prayer for three days. Let into [the
deliberations] ‘Ali, Uthman, al-Zubayr Sa’d, ‘Abd al Rahman b. Awf and Talah, if he
arrives. Have Abdullah b. Umar present, but he shall have nothing to do with the
matter [of the actual appointment]. Sat with them and if five agree to approve of
one man, but one refuses, smash in his head, or strike it off with a sword. If four
agree to approve of one man, but two refuse, cut off the [latters’ heads. If three
approve of one of them, and three approve of another, get Abdullah b. Umar to
make a decision. Let whichever party in favor of which he makes his judgment
select one of themselves. If they do not accept Abdullah b. Umar’s judgment, be on
the same side as Abd al Rahman b. Awf. Kill the rest if they do not go along with the
general consensus”.
History of Tabari, Volume 14 pages 146-147
We appeal to justice. How is it just to have a process wherein the appointment of a Khalifa over
the Muslims is restricted to six men from Madina, all of whom happy to be the Quraysh? Can
this be deemed egalitarian in nature? Moreover a Shura wherein participant are under the
threat of death of they do not support the majority can never fall within the definition of
egalitarianism wherein all have a free choice in their choice of successor. If Ibn al-Hashimi
questions why Imam Ali (as) participated in this unjust process, then we will say it was merely
to expose how rigged the process was. We can evidence this, by citing his own statement:
“Al Abbas came to him, and [Ali] said, ‘(The caliphate) has slipped from us! (Al-
Abbas) asked him how he knew. He continued, ‘Umar paired me with Uthman and
told us [all] to fall in with the majority. If two approve of one, and two another [he
said], we should be on the same side as Abd al Rahman b. Awf. Sa’d will not go
against his cousin, Abd al Rahman who is related by marriage to Uthman. They will
all (three) agree in their opinion. Abd al Rahman will appoint Uthman to the
caliphate or Uthman will appoint Abd al Rahman.
History of Tabari, Volume 14 pages 147
When just as Imam Ali (as) predicted Abd al Rahman b. Awf gave bayya to Uthman, he said:
“You have always been partial in his favor! This is not the first time you have banded
against us”
How can a rigged wherein appointment based on the familial ties of six men, be egalitarian?
7. Reply Seven – The Sahaba Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) attested to the fact
that the Sahaba ignored the doctrine of divine appointment
We shall now present to our readers a debate that can best be described as one of the earliest
documented debates on the doctrine of Imamah, between Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra), and the
chief architect of the doctrine of man made Imamah, Khalifa Umar ibn al Khattab. In it, Ibn
Abbas affirmed that Alllah (swt) had appointed a Leader, but the Quraysh ignored this
appointment. Al Tabari the discussion as follows:
"(Umar) said, "Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what kept your people from [being put]
over (Quraysh) after Muhammad's death". I did not want to answer, so I said, "If I
do not know then the Commander of the Faithful will tell me". Umar said, "They
were unwilling for you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest you
magnify yourselves among your own people and be proud. Quraysh made the choice
for themselves; they were right and have been granted success". I said, Commander
of the Faithful, if you permit me and not get angry with me, I shall speak". He
allowed me to do so, so I said "As for you saying, Commander of the Faithful, that
Quraysh have made their choice for themselves and that they were right and have
been granted success, if Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as God
did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied. As for your
saying that (Quraysh) were averse to the Prophethood and caliphate being ours,
God has described one people as being averse and said, "This is because they were
averse to what God revealed, so He made their works fruitless'". 'Umar said, "Far
from it indeed, Ibn Abbas. I used to hear things about you of which I was reluctant
to inquire, lest they bring about your removal from your position with me". I said, …
.
The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, p137-138
We can see from the tradition clearly that in the words of Umar, the Quraysh ‘were unwilling
for you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest you magnify yourselves
among your own people and be proud’ Then the stance of Umar ‘Quraysh made the
choice for themselves; they were right and have been granted success’
The rebuttal of Ibn Abbas is particularly relevant to our discussion. He states: ‘if Quraysh had
made the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would be
theirs, unrejected and unenvied’. These words prove that the Quraysh had adopted an
approach that did not concur with the choice that Allah (swt) had made. Ibn al Hashimi you can
bark and scream all you like, and assert that the supposed Shura of Abu Bakr was legitimate,
and that divine appointment is a nonsense, but the statement of Ibn Abbas destroys the house
of Shura upon which your entire article rests! We see a clear acknowledgement from this
renowned Sahaba that Allah (swt) had appointed from the Banu Hashim, a Khalifa over the
Ummah, to succeed the Seal of al Prophets, Muhammad al Mustafa (s). It is interesting to note
that Nawasib often claim that the doctrine of the divine appointment in relation to the Imamah,
was concocted by Abdullah Ibn Saba, who appeared on the scene during the reign of Uthman
ibn al Affan. Ibn Abbas made it clear to Umar that the succession to Muhammad was via divine
appointment, so where did he attain this belief from? Was there some earlier proto type of Ibn
Saba on the scene, or should we not accept the fact that Allah (swt) had indeed divinely
appointed a Leader and the Quraysh chose to ignore that appointment? If the belief of Ibn
Abbas, as is espoused by the Shi’a was something alien to Islam, why did Khailfa Umar not
rebuke him, for adhering to a unislamic belief? Rather than switch to defaming the Banu
Hashim would it not have been better to correct the devious beliefs of Ibn Abbas, in relation to
the divinely appointed Imamah? The failure of Umar to correct this statement of Ibn Abbas
serves as concrete proof that his belief that Allah (swt) appointed a Khalifa after Muhammad
(sa) was a completely legitimate one. If (according to Ahl’ul Sunnah) all the Sahaba are just
and truthful, then why do they not embrace the words of the just and truthful Ibn Abbas on the
topic of divinely appointed Imamah? Ibn al Hashimi tell us what concept of Imamate should we
adhere to? The man made doctrine advanced by Umar, or the divine one that Ibn Abbas
mentions the Sahaba chose to ignore?
In this chapter we shall seek to discuss a truly amazing revision of history by Ibn al Hashmi.
History testifies that the founding forefathers of the Khailafath were appointed through
methods such as at a gathering at Saqeefa (Abu Bakr), direct appointment by the predecessor
(Umar) or through a six man Shura Committee. Ibn al Hashimi asks his Sunni readers to rid
themselves of this fact. He in fact suggests that these three methods were not appointments,
rather they were merely nominations. The matter was then referred on to the public and it was
their act of bayya that in effect rubber stamped these ‘nominations’. Let us leave it to Ibn al
Hashimi to explain this incredible take on Islamic history:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
the general public gave their Bayat (pledge of
allegiance) to show their acceptance of each of
these nominations. As is apparent, this system of
nomination was egalatarian in spirit and
consistent with fairness.
8. Reply One – The Imamate of Abu Bakr was not dependent upon the
bayya of the Ummah
This is completely false. Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to suggest that the bayya administered to
Abu Bakr at Saqifa, his appointing Umar directly, and the 6 man Shura that lead to the
appointment of Uthman were merely ‘nominations’ – this is completely falsely. The debate that
occurred in Saqifa was over who succeed the Prophet [s] as his successor, and when Umar put
forward the name of Abu Bakar – that is a nomination, but immediately without any
consultation administered bayya to Abu Bakr, it was not bayya to a nominated Khalifa, rather it
was bayya to a man that he recognized as the Khalifa and wanted others to recognize likewise!
We would challenge Ibn al-Hashimi to produce any source that would evidence the Shaykhayn
informing the Sahaba that Abu Bakr had been ‘nominated’ as Khalifa and the public now had to
vote on the validity of the nomination. If there was merely a nomination, then Umar should
have asked for an adjournment of the meeting and held back giving bayya, by insisting that
shura needed to take place. He could have then brought this nomination before the Sahaba at
the Mosque of the Prophet [s] in Madina, set out why he backed this nomination and then after
consultation with the Sahaba left it them to decided whether to recognize Abu Bakr as the
Khalifa of the Prophet [s]. We would be keen to know of the Islamic justification for the actual
method used by Umar wherein he issued the name of a nominee and then automatically gave
bayya to him, thus excluding every other Sahaba from having a say in the process! One bayya
was secured inside Saqifa from Abu Ubayda and the Ansar, once success was attained it was
declared at the Mosque of the Prophet [s], and the Sahaba were simply asked to follow suit
with the decision at Saqeefa, by giving bayya to Abu Bakr. Shura would involve discussing
matters as a means of determining who the Khalifa should be, not informing them of an
appointment after it had been secured, so that the only thing the Sahaba were left with was to
fall in line with that decision! Exactly the same was the case with Umar, he was appointed by
the dying Khalifa as his successor, and the public were now tasked with giving bayya to that
appointment. The public Bayya was merely a ratification of these appointments, it’s not like any
other candidates could be put forward following these nominations. This is blatant dishonesty.
Ibn al Hashimi is falsely asserting that these nominations only turned into actual appointments
when general public bayya was given. This is a completely false claim.
9. Reply Two – The Sunni Ulema have ruled that general bayya is not a
pre-requisite to Imamate
It is interesting that the Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah have themselves cites these historical
appointments as proof that Imamate can be established without any public bayya, rather one
person giving bayya shall suffice. Imam Abu Bakar Muhammad bin Abdullah popularly known as
Ibn Arabi (d. 543 H) states:
“For a Imam’s bayah, it is not necessary that all people be a part of this rather two
or just a single person is suffice”
Sharah Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 3 page 229
“If only a singe person amongst Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed (the influential ones and those
having power) appoints someone as Imam, his Imamate will be legitimate and his
act will be Hujjah on the rest of the people. And we oppose the opinion of some
people who say that in order to establish Imamate, it is necessary for a group of
Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed to be present because our argument is that Umar [ra] had
appointed Abu Bakar as Imam while no Sahabi objected at him. This proves that like
other Uqud, numbers are not needed for Imamate.”
Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 269
Latrer on he stated:
إذا انعقدت المامة باتفاق أهل الحل والعقد أو بواحد على ما تقدم وجب على الناس كافة مبايعته
Allamah Abul Ma’aali Al-Juwayni (d. 478 H) in his book ‘Al-Irshad fi Al-Kalam’ stated:
“The Imamate of a person that was established through bayah of a single person, it
becomes necessary to recognize his Imamate”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Qadhi Ayji (d. 756 H) in ‘Mawaqif fi Ilm al-Kalam’ [Egypt edition] Volume
8 pages 351-353 states:
“Third reason for the establishment of Imamate. Its summary is that the Imamate is
established/enforced by the nass of the Prophet or Nass of the previous Imam and
it can also be established by a bayah by Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed, unlike the Shia, our
proof is the bayah of Abu Bakr. When this has been proved that Imamate is
established via election and bayya, then you should also know that ijma is not a
requirement for Imamate because there exists no logical or textual argument about
it, apart from Ijma two or just a single person among Ahlul alhil wa Alaqed have the
right to appoint someone as Imam because we are aware of the fact that Sahaba
were quite strict in religion yet they deem the appointment of a Imam by a single
person to be correct, as the appointment of Abu Bakar was made by a single person
namely Umar and similarly, Abdurehman alone had appointed Uthman and they had
not put the condition for the Ijma of the people of Madina, let alone of the whole
Ummah, and this act of them were not disliked by anyone, and from that day till
today, the very method is being.”
Imam Mawardi in ‘al Ahkam al Sultaniyya’ page 5, English translation by Professor Wafaa H.
Wahba made this point very clear:
These references prove that the suggestion by Ibn al-Hasihmi that the public endorsed the
nomination of Abu Bakr is false. We appeal to justice. Ibn al-Hasihmi is seeking to dupe his
Sunni readership into believing that there was open debate that lead to Abu Bakr coming to
power. This could not be furthest from the truth, Abu Bakr was appointed by the Khalifa inside
Saqifa, and the only thing that legitimised the process was Umar giving bayya. Umar put
forward his nomination, and without providing any opportunity for discussion that gave his
nominee bayya as the Khalifa. There was no Shura, the Sahaba that had no role in the process
were merely asked to agree to what had occurred inside the Saqifa, there was no consultation
over the Khalifa. Abu Bakr had already been appointed as Khalifa inside Saqifa, in absence of
any shura of the Sahaba, Mawardi acknowledges this, and points to this method as a legitimate
method to appoint a Khalifa, Ibn al-Hashimi would have us believe that those not party to the
Saqifa proceedings i.e. all the Muhajirin minus three, were given the opportunity to vote on the
nomination of Abu Bakr at Saqifa, Mawardi is making it clear that there was no such delay to
provide others such an opportunity, Abu Bakr was made the Khalifa at Saqifa and that was the
end of the matter.
The Sunni Ulema have likewise accept the legitimacy of Imamate, based on a single person
giving bayya, and have relied on Umar’s giving bayya to Abu Bakr as proof – that ends any
suggestion that there was Shura by the Sahaba over the ‘nomination’ of Abu Bakr at Saqifa. Ibn
al-Hashimi needs to read up on history before making such absurd comments.
Similarly with the appointment of Umar, the Sunni Ulema have likewise pointed to the Abu Bakr
appointed Umar without reliance on any manner of consultation a sound method of
appointment. Mawardi writes further on:
10. Ibn al Hashimi’s false inference that the Sahaba had the free choice on
whether or not to give bayya to Abu Bakr
As part of his web of lies, Ibn al-Hashimi seeks to convince his readers that all was perfect in
the domain of the Sahaba following the death of the Madina, and the people clamored to give
their bayya to the Khalifa following the Saqeefa discussions:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
the general public gave their Bayat (pledge of
allegiance) to show their acceptance of each of
these nominations. As is apparent, this system of
nomination was egalatarian in spirit and
consistent with fairness.
11. Reply – Critics of the regime were coerced into giving bayya
Fairness would be if those that were unhappy with such appointments had their opinions
accepted, but this was not the case. The Nasibi is suggesting that the ‘general public gave their
Bayat (pledge of allegiance) to show their acceptance of each of these nominations’ – let us
demonstrate one example of how the general public ‘gave’ their baya and then our readers can
decide whether such a method is consistent with fairness. We read in Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi
Shebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045:
“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that
his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the
Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult
her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to
Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more
than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by
Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from
giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’
So when Umar left, they (Ali and Zubair) came , so she (Fatima) said to them: ‘Do
you know that Umar came here and swear by Allah to burn the house if you gather
here, I swear by God that he (Umar) will execute his oath, so please leave wisely
and take a decision and don't gather here again.’ So they left her and didn't gather
there till they give baya to Abu Bakr.”
All the narrators are authentic as they are the narrators of Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim.
Muhammad bin Bashir: Imam Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam Ibn
Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58). Ubaidllah bin Umar: Al-Dahabi said:
‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1
p637). Zaid bin Aslam: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar
Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326). Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar):
Al-Dahabi said: 'Faqih, Imam' (Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’
(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p88).
Also see:
History of al-Tabari, Volume page 9 pages 186-187
This is the fair approach via which bayya was secured during the reign of Abu Bakr, wherein
those opposed to the appointment are threatened with murder. Subhanallah! As you can see
from this example, it is not so much that ‘the general public gave their Bayat’ rather ‘the
general public was forced to give their Bayat’.
12. Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to highlight the other non egalitarian methods
that entitles a man to be Khaleefs
We find it amazing as to why Ibn al Hashimi only presented the four methods for determining
the Khalifa of the Prophet [s], methods that he defined as ‘egalitarian in spirit’. We wonder why
he failed to cite all the methods of appointing the Khalifa of the Prophet [s] in Sunni Islam so
that their readers would be in a better position to conclude whether the Sunni doctrine of
Imamate is indeed ‘egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness’.
In addition to the above four methods that we have commented allow us to cite the other
options available on the Sunni Imamah menu. Qadhi Abu Ya’ala in ‘Ahkam al Sulatniya’ pages
7-11 states that Imamate can be secured via force / coercion, enter into some agreement is
unnecessary:
ول تفتقر إلى العقد،على أنها تثبت بالقهر والغلبة
“Imamate can be established through force and triumph and there is no need of
selection by anyone amongst Alaqed (those having power)”
“If anyone that attains power via sword and becomes the Khalifa and begin to call
himself Ameer al-Momineen (master of the believers), then anyone who believes on
Allah [swt] and the last Day is not permitted to spend even a night without
recognising him as the Imam, whether he be pious or a transgressor, he is Ameer al-
Momineen”
Moroever he states:
." فيكون مع هذا قوم ومع هذا قوم – " تكون الجمعة مع من غلب، من يطلب الملك،في المام يخرج عليه
وقال " نحن مع من غلب."واحتج بأن ابن عمر صلى بأهل المدينة في زمن الحرة.
“If someone rebels against a Imam, both of them have some followers with them
then the Friday prayers shall offered with the group that triumph and its proof is
that Ibn Umar used to offer prayers with the people of Madina [Yazeedies] during
the episode of Harra, and he used to say: ‘We are with the one who has triumph’”
Al Akhkam, pages 7-8
The Imam of the two Holy Sites Allamah Abul Ma’aali Al-Juwayni (d. 478 H) in his book ‘Al-
Irshad fi Al-Kalam’ wrote discussing the ‘powers of the Imam’ said on page 424:
“You should know that Ijma is not a requirement for Imamate. Imamate without
ijmaa is established and its proof is that the moment the Imamate of Abu Bakr was
established, he began to execute the matters of Muslims, he did not await for the
opinion of the Sahabah who lived far across but till today, no one criticized this act
of Abu Bakar. There is no requirement of ijmaa in Imamate and also it is clueless to
identify some individuals and to define the limitations of Ijmaa is useless as well.
Establishing the Imamate is proven through a byaah by a single person amongst the
Ahlul alhil wa alaqed (the influential ones and those having power)”
We appeal to justice, do you believe that attaining Imamate through force and tyranny is
‘egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness’? If it is not, why have your Sunni Ulema never
ruled against such forms of Imamah? The admission that the Imamate through force and
dictatorship proves that in Sunni Islam there is no requirement for the station of Imamate to be
‘egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness’ – and for the author to suggest that it is by
only partially presenting the Sunni doctrine of Imamate, and even then incorrectly is the height
of dishonesty. Qadhi Abu Yaala was pointing out that even after the event of Harra, Ibn Umar
still deemed the Caliphate of Yazeed rightful. Harra occurred when the Sahaba broke their
allegiance to Yazeed, following the tragedy of Karbala. Yazeed responded by giving his troops
free reign to ransack Madina for three days, during which time male Sahaba were slaughtered
and their women were raped, and despite this Ibn Umar still deemed this Caliphate rightful, and
Ibn al-Hashimi would no doubt describe raping political opponents in complete accordance with
the egalitarian spirit and fairness associated with the Sunni doctrine of Imamate.
Now we appeal to justice, these are the methods adopted by Ibn al-Hashimi’s pious
predecessors, that history has recorded, and the Sunni Ulema have deemed as legitimate
methods for become the Imam over Muslims. Despite the fact that none of the methods concur
with one another, the Ahl’ul Sunnah have ruled on all to be the correct mechanism for having
the Khalifa of the Prophet in power, whose obedience is on par with obedience to Allah [swt]
and his Prophet [s]. Can the above methods be described as ‘egalitarian in spirit and consistent
with fairness’ as Ibn al Hashimi would have us believe is the Sunni stance on Imamate? The
terms ‘egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness’ would suggest that all Muslims have an
equal right to stand as Khalifas, and that the entire Muslim Ummah are valued stakeholders
with a voice in deciding who the Khalifa of the Prophet [s] should be. The above methods
certainly wouldn’t suggest that to be the case, and when it came to the first three Khalifas
appointed, all that the Muslims were required to do was give their bayya to the appointment.
13. The Sunni Ulema have acknowledged that appointing the Khalifa on
the basis of nass (textual proof) is permissible
Ibn al-Hashimi attacks the Shia doctrine of divine appointment by nass, because it excludes all
other Muslims from either becoming Khalifas, or having a say in the appointment process,
hence it is non egalitarian and unfair in spirit. One wonders why would adhere to such a
position, when the Sunni Ulema have themselves cited nass as a valid method for appointing a
Khalifa. When the Sunni Ulema have ruled on the validity of appointment through nass that
revolves the right of all others to have a say in the choice of the Khalifa, then Ibn al-Hashimi is
left with no legitimate basis for attacking the Shia for adhering to exactly the same doctrine!
We shall now cite the opinions of those Sunni Ulema that have cited the soundness of
appointing the Khalifa via this ‘no egalitarian / unfair process’. Let us start with Sharh Mawaqif,
page 732 (Luknow):
“The third way among those that establishes the Imamate, because a person will
not become Imam just because he has that capability and possesses the
combination of those conditions that are required to become a Imam, rather there
are some other things as well which are required. One method is through Nass of a
prophet or of the previous Imam. This method is correct according to Ijma. The
other method is through the bayya Ahlul alhil wa alaqed, this is the belief of the
Ahl’ul Sunah, Mutazzilites and the Saliyah group from the Zaydites, but majority of
the Shias are against this, they say that there is no other method save nass.”
“The ijmaa of the entire Ummah is that Imamate can be established through nass,
but can this also be established through election by common men, yes or no! The
Ahl’ul Sunnah and Muttazilites believe that it can whilst the Ithna Ashariya Sect
believe that it can’t be without nass.”
About an existing Imam directly appointing next Imam, esteemed Sunni scholar Al-Nawawi
records in his book Al-Minhaj, Volume 12, page205:
أن المسلمين أجمعوا على أن الخليفة إذا حضرته مقدمات الموت وقبل ذلك يجوز له الستخلف
“The Muslims are unanimous that if the sign of death appears on the Caliph or even
before that, it is allowed for him to appoint a successor…”
From these quotes it is clear that the Shia doctrine of Imamate on the basis of nass is a method
which is acceptable to the Sunni ulema, the differences that exist are with regards to the other
methods of appointment. Ibn Hashimi will now have to accept that the Shia doctrine of
Imamate via nass, whilst no egalitarian in spirit, and may not conform to the doctrine of Shura,
but is sound under the Shari’ah, and why shouldn’t it be, after all some groups of the
supporters of Abu Bakr have themselves sort to evidence his right to be Khalifa through nass.
Famed Salafi scholar Saleh bin Abdulaziz al-Sheikh records in ‘Sharah Al-Aqeeda Tahawiyah’
Volume 1 page 636:
أن خلفة أبو بكر الصديق رضي ال عنه ثبتت بالنص الجلي ۔۔۔ وهذا القول هو الذي عليه:القول الول
وهو قول المام أبي عبد ال أحمد بن حنبل وأصحابه الحنابلة وطائفة كبيرة،جماعة كثيرة من أهل الحديث
وهو اختيار أيضا ابن حزم وجماعة من الظاهرية،من الشافعية
“The first opinion is that the khilafa of Abu bakr al-Sidiq [ra] is proven by
unequivocal Nass…This opinion is adopted by a large group of Ahlulhadith and same
is the opinion of Imam Abi Abdullah Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions the
Hanblis, and large group of Shafiyees, and it is adopted by Ibn Hazam too and a
group of Zahria.”
And then the Salafi scholar gives his own verdict about the correct method via which Abu Bakar
was appointed:
وهو أنها ثبتت بالنص الجلي،والصحيح من هذه القوال هو القول الول
“Among these, the correct opinion is the first one, which is has been proven by
unequivocal nass.”
Sharah Al-Aqeeda Tahawiyah, Volume 1 page 636
Similarly, these are the words of Ibn al-Hashimi’s own beloved Imam Ibn Taymiyah in ‘Minhaj
as Sunnah’ Volume 1 pages 486-487:
“There are many groups from amongst the Ahl’ul Sunnah that believe that the
Imamate of Abu Bakr can be evidenced through nass. On this issue there exists a
difference of opinion with Imam Ahmad and the other scholars and in relation to
this, the Qadhi Abu Ya’ala have narrated two traditions from Imam Ahmad, the first
one is that his Imamate was established through election of people and this view
was adopted by a group from the Ahl’ul Hadeeth, the Muttazlia and the Asharias,
and same is the opinion of Qadhi Abu Yala. The other is that it is through hidden
Nass and indication, and is belief is adopted by Hasan al Basri, a group of Ahl’ul
Hadeeth, Abu Bakar binte Abdul Wahid and the Bahisia sect of Khwaarij. Shaykh
Abu Abdullah bin Hamid said that the proof that Abu Bakr was eligible to be the
Khalifa while the Ahl’ul bayt and other Sahaba were not, comes from both Quran
and Sunnah. He stated that our Ulema had disagreement whether Khilfat was
proven from Nass or from Istidlaal (inference). A group among us believe that this is
proven by Nass and the Prophet mention it as Nass and specifically appointed Abu
Bakar, some scholars say that it was through Istidlaal”
Minhaj as Sunnah, Volume 1 pages 486-487
After this the Nasibi cited various narrations to prove the khilafat of Abu Bakr. If Nawasib such
as ibn-al Hashimi attack the Shia belief that the khilafat of Ali [as] is through nass, we cannot
be accused of possessing non egalitarian principles, when his beloved Sunni Ulema, most
notably Ibn Taymiyah believed that it is valid to believe that Imamate can be proven through
nass.
14. Ibn al Hashimi al Nasibi’s insult of the blessed parents of the Prophet
[s], Ibrahim [as] and Ali [as] as a means of rejecting the doctrine of
divine Imamah
15. Reply One – All the ancestors of the Prophet (s) were believers
If this evidences anything then it is the Ahlelbayt.com team are blashphemers of the highest
order. Even the blessed parents of the Prophet [s] cannot evade their takfeer fatwas. They
have resorted to heaping insults on the blessed ancestors of the Prophet [s] just to protect the
doctrine of man made khilafath, this is indeed shameful! But if we analyze we will come to
know that its not their fault rather their ancestors having unknown parentage during the era of
ignorance and who were occupied with all sorts of evils came into the fold of Islam and
unfortunately were successful to grasp key positions after Holy Prophet [s], and thus they made
sure that they insert such a text which equates the parents of Holy Prophet [s] and Ali bin Abi
Talib [as] with theirs.
It is unanimously accepted by the Shi'as, the Shafi'is and many other learned Sunnis that the
ancestors of the Holy Prophet (SAW) from Abdullah to Qidar ibn Isma'il and from there upto
Adam (a.s) were true believers. They believed in the One and the Only God, and faithfully
followed the divine religion of their times. From Qidar to Abdullah, all of them followed the
shari'ah of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s), which was the religion prescribed by Allah for them. As a
starting point consider the Du’a of Ibrahim [as] –
002.127- 129
YUSUFALI: And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House
(With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-
Hearing, the All-knowing.
"Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people
Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due)
rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy
Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For
Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise."
Here we have the du’a of Ibrahim and Ismaeel [as] that their descendants be Muslims and
Muhammad [s] come from that lineage. That should suffice as evidence that all the
descendants of Ismaeel i.e. the forefathers of Muhammad [s] were believers, and to utter
anything contrary to it proves that these Nasibi have rejected the Qur’an. There were Arabs,
prior to the Prophet Muhammad [s] who were the adherents of the religion of Ibrahim and if
we read Quran 2:132 & 6:161, it becomes clear that the religion of Ibrahim was nothing but
Islam, hence Sunni scholar Abdulrazaq Muhammad Aswad in his book ‘Mousoat al-Adyaan wa
al-Madahib’ Volume 1 page 103 records different forms of beliefs that were held by the people
prior to Prophet Muhammad [s]:
The historian say that the Arabs were on Ibrahim’s religion, the religion of Hanifia
and Tawheed”
The second clear proof that comes right from Holy Book regarding the fact that the Holy
Prophet's ancestors were not polytheists and infidels is verse 219 of Surah Shu'ara (The Poets)
which says,
"And your turning over and over among those who prostrate themselves to Allah."
(26:219)
Relevantly, under the commentary of this verse, a number of Sunni scholars have testified that
the ancestors of Prophet [s] were believers. Imam Qurtubi records in his Tafseer, Volume 13
page 144:
Ibn Abbas said: ‘In loins of the fathers Adam, Noh, Ibrahim, till he brought you as a
prophet’
Shaykh Ez uldeen Abdulaziz bin Abdulsalam al-Selami al-Shafyiee (d. 660 H) explains the words
of the verse in the following way in his book ‘Tafsir al-Ez bin Salam’ Volume 2 page 452:
His almighty say {your turning over and over among those who prostrate } there
are six interpretations for it:
One of which is: ‘From a prophet to a prophet till you brought as a prophet, ibn
Abbas said that.’
Shaykh Abdur Rehman al-Jazri records in ‘Al Fiqh ala Madahib al-Arba’ Volume 4 page 101:
His refutation regarding the forefathers of the prophet Muhammad were Muslims
not idolaters because they used to worship Allah according to Ibrahim's religion and
that narration is not restricted to Rafidha only, as some scholars narrated from Abi
Hayan in his tafsir for Allah’s statement ’{ your turning over and over among those
who prostrate }’
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti under the commentary of Surah Taubah verse 128 in his authority work
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 3 page 294 records:
Abu Naeem narrated in al-Dalael from ibn Abbas that he said that the messenger of
Allah (pbuh) said: ‘My fathers were never met on adultery, Allah was transferring
me from the good loins to the pure wombs purify and elegance, there wasn’t any
separation between two branches without I am in the best one.’
Now just consider this tradition from Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 757:
How could Rasulullah [s] refer to his ancestors as the best of generations if they were mushrik?
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 911 A.H), authored nine books on this subject, and
has proved beyond any doubt that all the ancestors of the Holy Prophet [as] were true
believers. The famous Sunni muhaddith, Shaykh Abdul Haq Dehlawi wrote in Madarij al
Nubuwwa, Volume 1 page 6:
“All the ancestors of the Holy Prophet from Adam up to 'Abdullah were pure and
clean from the impurity of disbelief and paganism. It was not possible for Allah to
put that Holy Light (of the Holy prophet) into any dark and dirty place, that is, in the
loin of a pagan man or the womb of a pagan woman. Also, how could it be possible
for Allah to punish the ancestors of the Holy Prophet on the day of judgment and
thus humiliate him before the eyes of the world."
Whilst that should suffice for those with open minds, we shall strengthen our contention further
by citing the pen of Mufti Ghulam Rasul al Hanafi who whilst discussing the excellence of Imam
Baqir [as], cited his excellence through lineage:
“Imam Baqir has countless, unlimited merits and virtues. Every merit is of a massive
scale, and the major merits is that he is from the family of the Prophet [s], and the
family lineage possessed by Rasulullah [s] is also possessed by Imam Baqir and
family lineage possessed by Rasulullah is greater than all other lineages of the
world.
Every nation in which a Prophet is sent, his lineage is greater than all other lineages
of the nation
When Allah [swt] sends a prophet to a nation, his lineage is greatest than the
lineages of his nation, so that no one can raise questions and argue on the lineage
of a prophet. Thus, Allamah Abu Hasan al Mawardi writes in ‘Alam al Nabuwat’ that
since Allah choose his prophets from amongst all of His [swt] people and are best as
compared to all of His [swt] creations, thus they have been chosen from the
elements that are Kareem and they have been made strong through relationships
that are firm, ‘preserve their dynasty from slander and their position from being
attacked’ so that their lineage can be protected from all kinds of objections and
their station is protected from every error, so that the souls of the people can
submit towards them and the people can seriously listen to their words, so people
All of the forefathers and mothers of the Prophet [s] were adherents of Tauheed and
were Momin
The lineage of our Prophet is superior to the lineages of the word, similarly his
lineage from his father Abdullah [as] to Adam [as] is pure and clean. Allamah Sayyid
Mahmud al-Shakri Alusi stated in ‘Balogh al Arab fee Marifat al Ahwal al-Arab’:
‘It is the opinion of the majority of scholars that all ‘Usool’ the Prophet [s] i.e. his
forefathers and mothers were the adherents of tauheed (oneness) of Allah, believed
in Qayamah and questioning, they were the adherents of the teachings of Deen al-
Hanifiyah’ and Hadhrath Ali (k) narrated that Holy Prophet [s] said: ‘Verily I was
born through Nikah, I was not born through an illegal union, from Adam till the time
that my parents conceived me, nothing from the things of the time of Jaahiliyah
ever touched me’. The chain of this hadeeth is Hasan, which is why Allamah Suyuti
in ‘Jami al Sagheer’ records that Ibn Adi recorded it in Kamil and Tabrani in Awsat
and has pointed out towards the notion that this hadith is Hasan.
Moreover Akramah narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse ‘And your turning over
and over among those who prostrate themselves before Allah’ (26:219) means that
the Holy Prophet [s] said:
‘The particles of my (Prophet [s]’) being were kept transferred from a loin of a
prophet to another until I appeared as a prophet.’
All narrators of the Hadeeth narrated by Akramah from Ibn Abbas are Thiqa
Bazaar and Tabrani narrated this hadeeth and all narrators in the chain are Thiqa.
There is another tradition in which Atta narrated from Ibn Abbas who told the
following meaning of the aforesaid verse: ‘The Holy Prophet [s] was kept
transferring from the loin of a prophet to another till His [s] mother gave birth to
him, this has been narrated by Abu Naeem’.
Jawahir al Uloom, pages 210-213
We should elaborate that the hadith Mufti Ghulam Rasool cited in the end, can be read in al-
Mujam al-Kabir by al-Tabarani, v11, p287 while Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami in Majm'a al-
Zawaed, v7, p86 stated about this tradition: 'The narrators are the narrators of Sahih,
except Shabib bin Beshr but he is Thiqah’and also Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi
al-Shami (d. 942 H) stated in his book ‘Subul al-Huda wa al-Reshad’ v1, p235: ‘The narrators
are Thiqa’.
Allamah Burhanuddin Halabi while quoting Imam Mawardi in his famed book Seerat al-
Halabiyah, Volume 1 page 6 records:
وإذا اختبرت حال نسبه وعرفت طهارة مولده علمت أنه سللة آباء:)وقال الماوردي في كتاب (أعلم النبوة
وشرف النسب وطهارة المولد من شروط النبوة، بل كلهم سادة قادة،كرام ليس فيهم مستزل
Al-Mawardi said in A’lam al-Nubuwa: ‘If you examine His genealogy, you would
come to know about the purity of His birth, you will realize that he is a descendant
of noble fathers, there was no one among them deviated, nay all of them were
masters and leaders. The honorable genealogy and pure birth is a condition for
prophethood.’
16. Reply Two – The parents of Maula Ali (as) were believers
As for the parents of Maula Ali [as], we will let Allamah Saaim Chisthi al Hanafi evidence the
truth in this regards, in his book ‘Mushkil kushah’ Volume 2 page 36-37 under the chapter 'the
pure tree' who has also relied on the works of Allamah Abdul Rahman al Safoori:
Sayyidina Haider Karar (ra) father was Hadhrath Abu Talib and his mother was
Fatima bint Asad and the grandfather of both of them was Hadhrath Hashim bin Abd
Manaf, means Ali’s father was the grandson of Hadhrath Hashim while Ali’s mother
was grand daughter of Hadrath Hashim and if Hadrath Hashim was the grandfather
Hadhrath Ali then he was also the father of the Imam of the Porphets- Muhammad
al Mustafa [s], while the ancestry of the Prophet [s] requires no introduction, his
descendants were all pure, whilst traditions do exists leading to people suggesting
they were mushrik (polytheist), but the majority of the Ulema have deemed this
wrong, and the ulema have deemed the words of the Prophet: “We were kept
transferring from one pure loins and womb from another’ as an abrogation of the
former text that portrays something contrary to this. And at the top of this, Allah
[swt] has made His [swt] statement as a testimony that: ‘And your turning over and
over among those who prostrate themselves before Allah’ .
Anyhow, even if this topic has been controversial in past, then it is not the case
today since many of the Wahabi scholars too agree that the ancestors of Prophet [s]
were clean of the impurity of kufr and Shirk…
“Hadhrath Jabir bin Abdullah narrates that the Prophet [s] said ‘Allah [swt] created
me and Ali from a nur before the Arsh, we used to perform tasbih and taqdees of
Allah [swt] two thousand years before the creation of Adam. When Allah [swt]
created Adam [as], He [swt] placed our Nur into his loin, which transferred through
a pure lineage, till it went into the loins of Hadhrath Ibrahim [as] and then through
his pure lineage it went to the loin of Abdul Muttalib from where , two third went to
Abdullah while one third to Abu Talib. Mine and Ali’s Nur then rejoined through
Fatima, thus Hasan and Hussain are the two Nur of Allah [swt]”. [Majlis, Volume 2
page 230 (printed Egypt) by Allamah Abdul Rahman al Safoori].
Mushkil Kushah, Volume 2 pages 36-37
Before we substantiate our position with texts we would ask those with rational minds to
consider the following points issues:
1. Can Ibn al Hashimi produce a single reference (even weak one) to prove that Hadharat
Abu Talib participated in idol worship?
2. When the Prophet asked the Makkan Kuffar to embrace the doctrine of Tauheed, what
immediately followed was vigorous opposition and persecution. Can Ibn al Hashimi cite
as any instance of Abu Talib (as) voicing his opposition to the doctrine of Tauheed
advocated by his nephew?
3. Differences of opinion are not uncommon, they can occur between a father and son,
when they are over religious beliefs this is an emotional matter that will inevitably lead
to debate and conflict.
4. The Makkan Kuffar had no personal grudge with Muhammad (s), he (s) was not after
their properties, nor did he want to harm them. Their opposition was solely on a
difference of beliefs. Why did Abu Talib (as) likewise, not side with the Prophet (s)
against his beliefs? There would have been no reason for him to maintain silence. On
the contrary the duty to be a vocal opponent was all the more necessary when one
considers Abu Talib was a tribal chieftain of Makka, and custodian of the Kaaba. If Abu
Talib was opposed to this doctrine, is it not inevitable that he would have come into
direct conflict with his nephew over this belief system?
5. History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (s),
the Quraysh subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the
tribe to an area called Shaeb Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering
from immense hardship. This boycott that sought to suffocate the tribe by prohibiting
trade went on with them went on for 1000 days. If Abu Talib was a mushrik what was
the sense in him suffering such hardship? The pressure placed on him was not of his
own doing, so why was he suffering? Could Pharaoh have tolerated a son growing up in
the same house as him, but holding a diametrically different belief system than his
own? Surely he would have cracked under the pressure. How could he tolerate
persecution as a consequence of his nephew that had a belief that he didn’t share? How
could a muhrik tolerate a man attacking his idol worship? Yet we see no textual
evidence of him remonstrating with his nephew or joining the Makkan Kuffar.
6. Is there any textual proof that Abu Talib (as) participated in any form of idol worship
whilst as the Shaeb Abi Talib? People always call upon the Supreme Authority during
times of worship. Is there any evidence of Abu Talib supplicating through the medium
of any form of idol? Did he ever call upon an idol to free him of these hardships?
Crucially can Ibn al Hashimi show us any evidence that the man that he deems a
mushrik took idols with him to the Shaeb Abi Talib? Had he done so, then Rasulullah (s)
would have responded in the same form manner that Prophet Ibrahim (as) had done
with his uncle. Yet we see no evidence of Abu Talib taking an idol, or calling upon one
for help.
7. If Abu Talib (as) was a kaafir, would the Prophet (s) truly have had the deep level of
love and devotion for him? Can we see from the Qur’an or Sunnah evidence of the
Prophet (s) having the same level of love for any other Mushrik, or for that matter any
other Muslim?
8. Whilst as Shi’a we believe that the lineage of Muhammad (s) were believers, the Sunnis
believe that Imam Ali (as) embraced the faith that Muhammad (s) had brought. Let us
for arguments sake accept this. If Abu Talib (as) was a Mushrik would he have allowed
his son to adhere to a faith that he deemed incorrect? Unusually we see no evidence of
Abu Talib ever preventing his son from following a belief system that he was opposed
to. Ali (as) was a child at the time, and age when a child shall not opposed the decision
of his father. No father would tolerate that his son was following a belief system that he
opposed? Would Ibn al Hashimi for example not seek to prevent his young son from
converting to Hinduism? Would you not threat the person misleading your son, to keep
away and not indoctrinate him with his deviant beliefs? Could Ibn al Hashimi show us
any argument wherein Abu Talib (as) told his nephew (s) not to perform dawah on him
and convert to his religion?
9. Rasulullah (s) remained with Abu Talib (as) until he died. He dined with him. Common
Arab cuisine of that time (as today) was meat. How could Rasulullah (s) eat the food
from the table of his uncle if he was a mushrik, an idol worshipper? We should keep in
mind that Rasulullah (s) never ate the meat slaughtered by mushriks. To this effect, we
have this tradition in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of)
Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was
presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was
presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you slaughter in
the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's
Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to
criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say,
"Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky,
and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in
other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice
and considered it as something abominable.
We may inshallah write a separate article on this great man, but since Ibn al-Hashimi is one
such blasphemer let us inform him that Rasulullah [s] himself was proud that he was the
product of legal union, and when it came to his own Nikah this was recited by Hadhrath Abu
Talib [as], and the sermon that Abu Talib [as] gave to the men of Quraysh who were present at
the marriage, he made clear references to Tauheed (ones of Allah) and the lineage of Ibrahim
[as]. Sunni scholar Halabi records the sermon:
“Praise be to Allah Who made us from the seed of Abraham and progeny of Ismaeel.
He granted as a Sacred house and a place of pilgrimage. He made us to dwell in a
secure sanctuary (haram), to which the fruits of everything are brought. He made
us, moreover, arbiters in men's affairs, and blessed for us this land in which we
dwell.”
Seerah al-Halabiyyah, volume 1 page 439, Urdu translation by Maulana Aslam Qasmi
Deobandi
Nawasib should be ashamed to suggest that the Nikah of Muhammad [s] was recited by a
kaafir, if it was what should we say of the children born of that union?
The History of Tabari Volume 6 page 96 also informs us that when Abu Jahal approached Abu
Talib, remonstrating as follows:
“Your nephew is reviling our gods and doing all sorts of things. Why do you not send
for him and forbid him to do this? He sent for him, and the Prophet came and
entered the room…Abu Talib said to him, ‘Nephew how is it that your tribe are
complaining of you and are complaining that you are reviling their gods and saying
this, that and the other”.
Just consider his words here ‘you are reviling their gods’ if Abu Talib was a mushrik as Ibn
al Hashimi suggest, why did he not say ‘you are reviling our gods’? Abu Talib was making it
clear that he did not ascribe to the same beliefs as the complainants, and this destroys the
claim of Ibn al Hasihmi.
Nasibi such as Ibn al Hashimi take great enjoyment relying on a tradition wherein Abu Talib
kept on insisting on his deathbed “I am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib" (Sahih al
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 223) but since when was Abdul Muttalib a Mushrik? We
have already proven that the pre lineage of Muhammad (s) was that of believers, that of course
incorporates Abdul Muttalib, his (s) grandfather. If this Nasibi rejects this then perhaps he could
explain why we read in Surah Fil how Allah (swt) protected the Kaaba from attack, following the
supplication of none other than Abdul Muttalib. Was the protection on account of the
supplication of a mushrik? If it is argued it was natural that Allah (swt) would protect His
House, then we will ask why this protection was not afforded when the same house was
catapulted with fireballs during the Caliphate of Ibn al Hashmi’s sixth Imam Yazeed? Why did
Allah (SWT) protect the Kaaba at that time and not at any other? To us, it is simple:
1. to prove that Abdul Muttalib was divinely inspired (he predicted that Allah would protect
it) knowing that in the future some people would lower that status of the prophet’s
ancestors
2. it was the year the prophet was born so Allah wished to honor him
3. the Qur’an: says:
{106:1} For the protection of the Qureaish--
{106:2} Their protection during their trading caravans in the winter and the
summer--
{106:3} So let them serve the Lord of this House
{106:4} Who feeds them against hunger and gives them security against
fear.
We will also counter such absurd narrations with this one from Khasais al Kubra Volume 1 page
215:
“When the time of death of Abu Talib neared, he summoned the children of Abdul
Muttalib and said ‘You will in remain in a good situation, as long as you listen to the
words of Muhammad (s), and adhered on his orders, . Follow him and support him”
A mushrik would never provide this form of advice to his children. Being a mushrik, how could
he advise his descendants to adhere to the teachings of Muhammad (s) who was preaching
belief in Tauheed? How could one that allegedly spent his life in Kufr, be advising his
descendants to remain is a good stead by following another religion? He would view these as
deviants beliefs, why would he encourage his descendants to adhere to this deviant path?
Supporting him is one thing but to advocate adhering to his teachings to attain success, can
only be the case if he likewise affirmed these beliefs.
Further traditions from Khasais al-Kubra prove that Abu Talib (as) died as a believer.
وما، لن تزالوا بخير ما سمعتم من محمد: ان ابا طالب لما حضرته الوفاة دعا بني عبد المطلب فقال: وفيها
فاتبعوه واعينوه ترشدوا، اتبعتم أمره.
When death came to Abu Talib, he called the children of Abdulmutalib and said: ‘You
will remain in good as long you listen to Muhammad and follow his instructions,
therefore follow him and support him to be guided.
we further read:
أن أبا طالب: وبعضها عن أبي بكر بن أبي قحافة، روي بأسانيد كثيرة بعضها عن العباس بن عبد المطلب
محمد رسول ال، ل إله إل ال: ما مات حتى قال.
It has been narrated by many chains some of them from al-Abbas bin Abdulmutalib
and some of them from Abu Bakr bin Abi Quhafa that Aba Talib before he his death
said: ‘No God but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's messenger.’
We also read:
ما مات أبو طالب حتى أعطى رسول ال صلى ال عليه وآله من نفسه الرضا: وروي عن علي انه قال
It is narrated from Ali that he said: 'Abu Talib didn’t die before he gave the Prophet
(pbuh) what made Him pleased'.
al-Khasais Ali by Imam Nesai, page 37
Moreover it is interesting that Allamah Saaim Chishti al-Hanafi on the death of Abu Talib [as]
cited two esteemed Sunni sources:
"About the book from which we are now going to cite reference, the Qutb al-Iqtab,
the moon of Wilayah, Hadhrat Mian Sher Muhammad in one of his works wrote that
it is extremely necessary to read that book in order to give survival to one’s faith…
.Syed al-Muhaqaqeen (master of researchers) and crown of Muhadatheen Hadhrat
Allamah Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi [ra] in his book Madarij al Nubuwwat
has quoted various references from that very book being talked about, thus at many
places he stated “Taken from Ma’arij”. He himself stated: “The opinion of Ahlulbayt
is that Abu Talib [ra] died as a believer” [Madarij al Nubuwwat, Volume 2 page 546]
Ma’arij al Nabuwwat
“It has been narrated from Ahlulbayt that they all agree and have Ijma on the fact
that Abu Talib [ra] died as a believer.” [Ma’arij al Nabuwwat, part 2 page 69]."
Ayon al-Matalib fi Athbat Iman e Abi Talib, page 367 (Published in Chishti Kutub Khana,
Faisalabad, Pakistan)
Ibn Hashimi, don’t you suggest that the Ahl’ul Sunnah are the true followers of the Ahl’ul bayt
[as]? Why on earth have you ignored the ijmaa of the Ahl’ul bayt in this regards? Will you go on
record and declare that the Ahl’ul bayt [as] were wrong on this matter?
These are the names of some of the books written by the scholars of Ahle Sunnah to prove that
Abu Talib [as] died as a Muslim:
17. Reply Three – The father of Prophet Ibrahim (as) was a believer
Although the traditions we have cited up till now to prove that the forefathers of Holy Prophet
[s] were all monotheist caters the lineage back to Adam [as] which include Ibrahim’s [as] father
as well, thus we do not see any need to specifically prove the belief of Ibrahim’s [as] father but
since Ibn al-Hashimi al-Nasibi has specifically declared Ibrahim’s [as] father as Kaafir, we shall
point out that only those pathetic people reach to that conclusion who deem Azar (Ibrahim’s
uncle who was Kaafir) to be the father of Ibrahim’s [as] while in reality his biological father was
Tarakh who was a believer. We shall cite two Sunni sources in this regard. Allamah Sayed
Mahmud Alusi states in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 7 pages 194-195 under the commentary
of (Quran: 6:74):
A great number of Ahlulsuunah relied on that is Azar was not the father of Ibrahim
[as] and they claimed that there has been no one among the forefathers of the
Prophet [s] who was a disbeliever at all, according to His [s] statement: ‘I was
transferred from the pure loins to the pure wombs, and the mushrik is impure.’
Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) records in ‘Subu al-Huda wa al-
Rashad’ Volume 1 page 256:
‘Among those who inclined to that path is Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi (may Allah’s
mercy be upon him). He added that all of His [s] forefather up till Adam were on the
belief of Tawheed. As he said in his book ‘Asrar al-Tanzil’: ‘It has been said that Azar
wasn’t the father of Ibrahim, but he was his uncle.’
18. Reply One – Allah (swt) placed divine leadership in the lineage of one
family
This has nothing to do with superior bloodline, it is to do with whoever Allah [swt] blesses with
Leadership. Allah [swt] says in his Glorious Book:
That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his
people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom
and knowledge. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him,
We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and
Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good.
Al-Qur'an, Surah 83, Ayah 84, translated by Yusufali
We also read:
And We granted him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and caused the prophethood and the book
to remain in his seed, and We gave him his reward in this world, and in the
hereafter he will most surely be among the good.
Al-Qur'an, Surah 29, Ayah 27
Relevantly, we read under the commentary of this verse in Tafsir Baghwi, Volume 3 page 465:
إن ال لم يبعث نبيا بعد إبراهيم إل من نسله
“Verily God never sent a prophet after Ibrahim except from his descendants”
“The number of messengers are 313, all of them from Jacob’s progeny except 20
messengers”
This is why Allamah Alusi in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, Volume 1 page 151 and Allamah Sharawi in
Qasas ul Ambiyah, page 78 stated about Ibrahim [as] that:
وهو أبو النبياء
19. Reply Two – Allah (swt) chose the Ahlulbayt (as) Imams as Guides for
the Ummah and equipped them with all the necessary tools needed for
the role
In any case we believe that the Creator has blessed the descendants of Muhammad [s] with
perfection and knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah that makes their right to lead the Ummah
to be an exclusive right. They were endowed with these skills, which is why Rasulullah [s] made
it clear that they should be followed:
Whoever wants to board the boat of salvation, and take the firm handle, and grasp
the firm Rope of Allah [swt] should love ‘Ali and be an enemy to his enemies, and
from the lineage of ‘Ali he should follow the Imams of Guidance. Verily these are my
Khalifas and the Proofs of Allah [swt] after me. These are the Chieftains of my
Ummah and the Leaders of the Pious entering Paradise. This group is my group and
my group is the group of Allah [swt]. Their enemies group is the group of Shaytan”
YaNabi al Mawaddat pages 503-504
“Whoever wishes to live and die like me, and reside in the eternal Garden that my
Creator has cultivated must love ‘Ali after me and love his friends, and must follow
the Ahl’ul bayt after me, they have been created from the same clay as me, and they
have been showered with my wisdom and knowledge, verily anyone that denies
their virtues shall go to Hell, one that mocks them shall go to Hell, I shall not
intercede for anyone that separates my descendants from me”.
Jama'ul Jawameh, Volume 7 page 174
Does the author have an issue with these words, since Rasulullah [s] is indicating adherence to
his relatives as guidance, does this not prove that guidance was a hereditary right placed upon
the descendants of the Prophet [s]?
20. Reply Three – Rasulullah (s) appointed the Ahl’ul bayt (as) as Khalifas
over the Ummah
If Ibn al Hasihmi tries to offer up some lame excuses to argue that the above texts do not refer
explicitly to the right to lead the nation as Khalifas, then allow us to cite evidence that should
shut his mouth once and for all. As a starting point we have this tradition in Sahih Muslim, Kitab
al Imara Book 020, Number 4483:
The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have
been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish.
This tradition has fixed the period of Islam's existence till the day of Qiyamat and also fixed the
number of Khalifas for this Ummah as twelve. Now allow us to cite those traditions wherein the
Prophet [s] made an explicit reference to the identity of those that He [s] deemed Khalifas.
ثنا أبو بكر ثنا عمرو بن سعد أبو داود الحفري عن شريك عن الركين عن القاسم بن حسان عن زيد بن ثابت
قال قال رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم إن تارك فيكم الخليفتين من بعدي كتاب ال وعترتي أهل بيتي
وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض
Zaid bin Thabit said that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “I am leaving among you two
Caliphs after me, the Qur’an and my progeny Ahlul'bayt, they will never separate
from eachother until they meet me at the pool”.
1. al-Sunnah, by Ibn Abi Asim, page 337
3. al-Mujam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v5, p154
3. Ma Ruwyah fi Khabar al-Hawz, by Imam Qurtubi, page 138
5. Zilal al-Janah, by Al-Albani who declared it ‘Sahih’, hadith 754
Zaid bin Thabit said the Prophet (s) said: “I am leaving among you two Caliphs, the
book of Allah that is a rope connected to the heavens and the earth, and my progeny
Ahlul'bayt, they will never separate until they meet me at the pool ”.
Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout in his margin of the book Musnad Ahmed declared the tradition as
‘Sahih’ so did Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in Al-Jame'a al-Saghir, v1 p402 and Imam Nasiruddin Al-
Baani in Sahih al-Jame'a, Hadith 4222 while Imam Al-Haythami said: ‘The chain is good’
(Majm'a al-Zawaed, v9 p162).
Zaid bin Thabit said that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “I am leaving among you two
Caliphs, the book of Allah and Ahlul'bayt, they will never separate until they meet
me at the pool ”.
Imam Abi Bakar Al-Haythami said: “The narrators are reliable” (Majm'a al-Zawaid, v1,
p170).
Can there be anything more explicit than texts wherein Rasulullah (s) explicitly refers to the
Quran and Ahl’ul bayt (as) as Khalifas? Interestingly the first of the two traditions contains the
words Itrati Ahl’ulbayt, meaning my Ahl’ulbayt descendants. So bringing these facts together
we can see that Rasulullah (s) guaranteed the existence of 12 Khalifas until the Day of
Judgment, Khalifas that would be his descendants. The Qur’an is the theoretical Khalifa, and
the Ahl’ul bayt Imams (as) are the Khalifas for the Ummah at a practical level.
Notice how the Prophet (s) imposes these two Caliphs upon the people, making it clear that he
is leaving them after him. Can there be anything more non egalitarian than this? If leadership
was egalitarian in nature why did he not say “I am leaving among you two Caliphs, the
book of Allah and whoever you choose to follow after?’ The very fact that Rasulullah (s)
directed that the Ahl’ul bayt (as) would serve as Caliphs after him proves that the Shi’a doctrine
that deems Imamate as the divinely appointed right of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) in complete
conformity with the dictates of the Holy Prophet (s). If Ibn al Hasihmi has indigestion with such
an assertion perhaps he could point us to any Sahih tradition wherein he (s) had referred to any
Sahaba, whether individual or as a collective group as Khalifas alongside the Qur’an. If he is
unable to do so then we suggest that he accepts the authority of the blessed Ahl’ul bayt (as)
Imams who Rasulullah (s) designated as Khalifas over the Ummah.
Similarly:
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia adamantly believe that the leadership of
the Muslims cannot go outside one lineage,
namely that of the Prophet [s]. This concept of
birthright is contrary to the spirit of Islam, which
dictates that men work for their rank and position
in this life, and that their lineage cannot possibly
dictate their greatness. This would go against not
only Islamic morals, but against our
contemporary notion of fairness as well.
22. Reply– Imamate is restricted to the twelve Imams only, not every
descendant of an Imam
This is nothing to do with superior bloodline, it is to do with whoever Allah [swt] blesses with
Leadership. As Shia we believe that Allah [swt] has blessed the Ahl’ul bayt [as] with the tools of
guidance and hence it is He [swt] that has ruled that leadership is restricted to the twelve
perfect men from this lineage. We agree that lineage cannot dictate greatness since you can
get sinners from the descendants of Muhammad [s] BUT in relation to Imamah we believe that
Allah [swt] has given the twelve Ahl’ul bayt [as] Imams the rank and position to lead the
Ummah, and purified them of all sins, thus ensuring they would never fall into any
transgression. When He [swt] decides that Imamate is the right of the descendants of
Muhammad [s] and he accordingly equips them with the necessary skills to implement that role,
no one has the right to question their right to be Imams – since his is a divine right bestowed
upon them by the Creator [swt]. It is not an issue of being ‘fortunate enough to be born in
the right womb’ – it is being blessed with the right to rule by Allah [swt]. If this was the case
then every descendant of Muhammad [s] have the right to be the Imam on account of
bloodline, but this was not the case it was the divine right of twelve men. If the Shia did indeed
believe that Imamate was linked to aristocratic blood lineage, then the doctrine of kingship
would suggest that Imamate should have automatically gone through the lineage of the
descendants of Imam Hasan [as] – but it did not, it was the will of Allah [swt] that it began
with Maula Ali [as], then to his two sons Hasan [as] and Hussain [as] and then through the
nine descendants of Hussain [as]. The fact that the Imamate did not cascade through the
descendants of Imam Hasan [as] does not in anyway mean that the blood lineage of Imam
Hasan [as] was any different or lesser to Imam Hussain [as] – asthagfirullah. The fact is our
Creator designates the station of Imamate to whomever amongst the Ahl’ul bayt [as] He [swt]
appoints, it is not for us to pick and choose which Imam we like! Pertinent to this fact Mufti
Ghulam Rasool of ‘Daar-ul-Uloom Qadriyah Jilaniyah, London’ stated:
“The chain of Imamate was placed in the progeny of Imam Hussain [as]:
When Hadrath Ali; the Lion of Allah was referred to as Hadrath Harun [as] and the
chain of the prophethood was put in the progeny of Hadrath Harun [as] and not in
the progeny of Hadrath Musa [as] likewise the chain of Imamate was put in the
progeny of Imam Hussain [as].
Therefore, Abdul Haleem Jundi writes that Muffazzal bin Umro asked Imam Jafar
Sadiq [as] that since Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain are from the progeny of Holy
Prophet [s], both of them are sons (sibt) and leaders of the youth of paradise then
why the chain Imamate was placed in the progeny of Imam Hussain and not in the
progeny of Imam Hassan. Imam Jafar Sadiq replied: “Both Musa [as] and Harun [as]
were brothers and prophets. Allah [swt] placed the chain of prophet hood in the
progeny of Harun [as] not in the progeny of Musa [as]. Nobody can ask as to why
Allah [swt] did so. Similarly Imamate which is the caliphate of Allah [swt] has been
placed in the progeny of Imam Hussain. Allah [swt] is wise in his works and nobody
can ask Him as to why he did so. [al-Imam Jafar Sadiq, page 147]”
Tazkirah Imam Hussain, page 86
23. Ibn al Hashimi’s objection to the Shi’a rejection of the Imamate of Abu
Bakr
24. Reply – The Shia reject Abu Bakr because the Prophet (s) did not
appoint him
The Shia say Abu Bakr had no right to the Caliphate because he was not appointed by
Rasulullah [s] whilst Imam ‘Ali [as] was. The right of Ali [as] to be Khalifa was not because he
was related to the Prophet [s], it was because he was appointed by Rasulullah [s] to be the
Khalifa after him. He [s] likewise ordered the Ummah to follow the Ahl’ul bayt [as] because they
had been appointed as eternal guides for the Ummah, that evidences their right to be rulers
over the nation.
25. Ibn al Hashimi’s objection that Shias hate Mu’awiya due to his
supposed father
26. Reply - The evil deeds of Muawiya are the reason that Shias find him
abhorrent
As a starting point, this Nasibi should know that the Imam he calls “(r)” was not from the
lineage of Abu Sufyan, rather he was the product of a four way sex orgy, with Abu Sufyan
being one of the lucky entrants. It is therefore wrong to confidently assert the linage of the son
of Hind, there was a one in four chance that Abu Sufyan was the father, let us just leave it at
that.
Coming back to the Imam of Ibn al Hashimi himself, we scorn Muawiya due to his evil deeds,
such as the cursing of Maula Ali [as], killing innocent Shias and committing numerous violations
of the Qur’an and Sunnah. This aside, one’s nature can have an influence on a persons
character, Muawiya was brought up in a household that hated Rasulullah [s] and Banu Hashimi
– wherein his supposed father lead the opposition to Muhammad [s] and his popularly known
whore mother ate the liver of Hamza (ra) – such attitudes did indeed have a bearing on his evil
ways. Such ethical beliefs were in turn imbedded into the mind his beloved son Yazeed (la), as
can be evidenced from his proclamation:
"… at the time of killing Husain and his companions, he approached the pulpit and
said that he had avenged the death of his ancestors at Badr”.
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, page 77
Perhaps Ibn al Hashimi could explain who taught him about avenging the deaths of his kaafir
ancestors? Considering Yazeed was brought up under the pupilage of his father Mu’awiya it is
not too difficult to pinpoint who would have endowed cascaded such beliefs down to him.
27. Ibn al Hashimi’s claim that all familial ties shall be severed on the Day
of Judgment
28. Reply – The familial lineage of the descendants of Muhammad (s) shall
not be severed on the Day of Judgment
The amusing thing is this Nasibi doest even bother to inspect his own books. He is suggesting
that all family ties will be cut off on the Day of Judgment but actually that will be the case
except for the descendants of the Prophet [s] and the very fact is sufficient to water down the
Nasibi attempts of equating the progeny of Prophet [s] with those of common people and it
proves that Allah [swt] have bestowed ‘special’ ranks to the Prophet [s] and his Ahlulbayt [as].
Imam Tabrani records in his prestigious work “Al-Mu'ajam al-Kabir” Volume 11 page 194:
Ibn Abbas narrated that the messenger of Allah [s] said: ‘Every reason and
relationship will be disconnected on the day of judgment except my relatives and
progeny’
Al-Haythami said about this tradition: ‘The narrators are reliable’ (Majma al-Zawaid, v9
p173), Imam Jalaluddin Suyiti said: ‘Sahih’ (al-Jamea al-Saghir, v2 p280), Imam of
Salafies/Wahabies Nasiruddin Al-Baani also graded it Sahih (Silsila Sahiha, v5 p58 H 2036) and
so did Allamah Hassan Saqqaf (in the margin of Sahih Sharh Aqida Tahawia, p7).
Jabir said: ‘I heard Umar bin al-Khatab [ra] saying: ‘I heard messenger of Allah [s]
saying: ‘Every relation and progeny will be disconnected on the day of judgment
except my relatives and progeny’’.
al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are the narrators of Sahih (books) except al-Hassan
bin Sahl, but he is Thiqah’ (Majma al-Zawaed, v9, p173 H 15019) Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti
graded it Sahih (al-Jamea al-Saghir, v2 p280) ) and so did Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaoot (Marign
of Siyar alam al-Nubala, v16 p85) and Nasiruddin Al-Baani al-Salafi (Silsila Sahiha, v5 p58 H
2036).
And why are we even citing this to the Nawasib since these are the people who have always
been happily bringing the following tradition recorded by Allamah Abu Naeem Asfahani in
“Ma’arfat Sahabah” page 231, in an attempt to prove the supposed marriage between Umar bin
al-Khattab and Um Kulthum bint Fatima Zahra [sa]:
Al-Mustadhel bin Husain reported that Umar bin al-Khatab sent the proposal to Ali
bin Abi Talib [ra] for his daughter Um Kulthum, he (Ali) rejected with the reason of
her young age, he (Umar) said: ‘I don’t want the sexual intercourse, rather I heard
Prophet [s] saying: ‘Every relation and progeny will be disconnected on the day of
judgment except my relatives and progeny, every body has a father and to him he is
related, except Fatima’s progeny since I am their father and to me they are related’.
This can also be read in Fadael al-Sahaba by Ahmad bin Hanbal (v3, p48), Jame'a al-Ahadith by
Suyuti (v26 p96), Kanz al-Umal, v13 p624 and Subul al-Huda wa al-Reshad (v10, p458) by
Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H).
While this particular tradition is of no value to us, but the words of Umar is suffice to prove that
although he was relative of Holy Prophet [s] being his father in law, yet he was not among
those relatives of Holy Prophet [s] who have been bestowed with a special merit – their lineage
will not be disconnected on the day of judgment, and thus Umar was dependent on the
progeny of Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. Let us also cite the words of Mufti Ghulam Rasul al Hanafi from
his book ‘Hasab wa Nasab’ Volume 1 page 63:
“On the Day of Judgement lineages of all other people will be cutt off. Quran states:
‘Then when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no more relationships between
them that Day, nor will one ask after another!’ The day a man will flee from his
brother and his mother and his father, and his wife and his children. But on this day
the lineage of the Prophet [s] shall remain intact, and this shall be beneficial for his
progeny. Allamah Sayed Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi records: ‘On the day of Judgement,
no lineage shall be of benefit, save the lineage of the Prophet [s]’. (Tafseer Ruh al
Ma’ani, Volume 9 page 65)”
Hasab wa Nasab, Volume 1 page 63
29. Ibn al Hashimi’s absurd claim that the Prophet (s) fathering no son
destroys the concept of a superior lineage
30. Reply
What a stupid and ridiculous conjecture (Qiyas)! The lineage of Imamate began with Imam Ali
bin Abi Talib [as]. The lineage of Imamate continued through his eleven offspring from the
union with Sayyida Zahra [as]. Imam Ali [as] was the nafs (self) of Rasulullah [s] and the sons
of Ali [as] were described by Allah [swt] as the sons of Muhammad [s] so that shall suffice to
refute this absurd notion. There are also many traditions wherein Rasulullah [s] referred to
Hasnayn [as] as His [s] sons. The lineage of Rasulullah [s] came through Imam Ali [as] as can
be proven from Hadeeth materials. Mufti Ghulam Rasul records in ‘Hasab aur Nasab’ Volume 1
page 62:
“Allah [swt] placed every Prophets lineage in his loins, and has placed my lineage in
the loins of Ali”
[Manaqib page 29, Ya Nabi al Mawadah page 266, Majma al Zawaid page 272,
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 73, Jami al Sagheer page 230, Tareekh Baghdad Volume
page 316, Meezan al Itidal Volume 2 page 116, Lisan al Meezan Volume 3 page 429,
Zakhair al Uqba page 68, Sharh Mawahib Ladunya Volume 2 page 6]
Allah [swt] had chosen this form of divine Imamate, he exalted the lineage of Muhammad [s] in
this manner. We already cited the relevant comments of Allamah Dr. Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi in
his book ‘Zibeh-e-Azeem’ pages 41-42 in this regards:
“Hadhrath Ibrahim supplicated twice, firstly of that was ‘O Allah [swt] provide the
Seal of Prophets from my lineage’ and second one was ‘Provide the position of
Imamate to my ummah’. Thus, the Seal of Prophets appeared in the shape of
Muhammad al Mustafa [s]. With Prophethood ending on Muhammad [s] it was
obligatory that the station of Muhammad’s Prophethood appear and move forward
in the shape of Imamate and Wilayath. Wilayath then appeared in the lineage of
Hadhrath Ibrahim [as]. The Prophet [s] did not have a natural son, the station of
Muhammad’s Prophethood appeared as the Imamate and Wilayath of al Mustafa,
which is why it was necessary for it to be continue by a revered and respected
family, those that may not be the natural son of the Prophet [s] but should be the
body part of Rasulullah [s],. Therefore, Allah [swt] focussed on Hadhrath Ali (k) and
the beloved daughter of Fatima al Zahra (ra) , Leader of the Women of Paradise for
the same exalted position.
The Heaven’s decision of the marriage of Ali (ra) and Sayyida Fatima (ra)
“In accordance with Allah [swt] and the desire of the Prophet [s] decided on the
marriage of these great personalities:
“Hadhrath Abdullah Ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet [s] said ‘Verily Allah [swt]
has ordered me to marry Fatima to Ali” [Muajim al Kabir al Tabarani, Volume 10
page 156].
Rasulullah [s] said that the marriage if Ali and Fatima had been ruled on in the
Heavens, this marriage was in accordance with the order of Allah [swt] because the
Wilayath of Rasulullah [s] had to continue with Hadrath Ali, and he (ra) had to
become the fulfilment of the supplication of Ibrahim, to attain this the King of the
World [s] through him (ra) and Fatima (ra) attained a pure association”
Zibeh-e-Azeem, pages 41-42 (Minhajj al Quran publications, Model town, Lahore)
31. Ibn al Hashimi’s attacking the Shi’a belief that Imamate is restricted to
one lineage
32. Reply
If we believe that leadership is restricted to one lineage it is because Allah [swt] and his Rasul
[s] appointed these twelve men as such. At least we believe that in that position possess the
excellences required with this post, excellences that the Creator has endowed them with, on
account of their role as Imams. At least we believe the Shia doctrine of Imamate calls that Allah
[swt] appoints that man who is the most superior in the Ummah, compare that to and the
supposed egalitarian doctrine of Imamah that Ibn Hashimi is seeking to present. It isn’t based
on anything that even resembles superiority it based purely on one being tribally affiliated to
the Prophet [s]. Here are just two traditions from Sahih Muslim kitab al imara ‘The people are
subservient to the quraish and the caliphate is the right of the quraish’. We read in
Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4473:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims
among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers
among the people being subservient to the disbelievers among them.
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) said: The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only
two persons are left (on the earth),
This very tradition was cited by Abu Bakr to evidence his right to rule at Saqifa. The Sunnni
Ulema have used this very tradition to argue that khilafat can only remain in one family, the
tribe of Quraysh. We read in Sharh Mawafiq, page 732:
The conditions of Imamate are that the imam be from the Quraysh, this condition
has been deemed obligatory by the Asharies, although the Jabayaan, the Khawarij
and some Muttzilites are opposed to this”
"The condition of Qurashite origin is based upon the general consensus on this point
that obtained in the men around Muhammad on the day of the Saqifah. On that day
the Ansar intended to render the oath of allegiance to Sa'd b. Ubadah. They said
"One amir from among us, and another from among you". But the Qurashites argued
against them with Muhammad's statement, "The imams are from the Quraish".
The Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldun, translated by Franz Rosenthal, Volume 1 page 597
(Princeton University Press)
It is worth noting that most Sunnis are adherents of the Ashari creed. Ibn al-Hashimi might be
willing to reject the assertions of these Ulema, but how can he dismiss the ruling of his own
blessed Imam Ibn Tamiyah who in ‘Minhajj al Sunnah’ Volume 1 page 271 asserts:
كون الخلفة في قريش فلما كان هذا من شرعه ودينه كانت النصوص بذلك معروفة منقولة مأثورة يذكرها
الصحابة بخلف
"The caliphate should remain specific to the Quraysh because this is a part of the
Shariah and Deen of Allah therefore the texts about this is renowned and narrated
by the companions without any disagreement".
Minhajj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 271
Another darling Imam of Salafies Ibn Qayim states in Hadi al-Arwah, page 289:
و الخلفة في قريش ما بقي من الناس اثنان و ليس لحد من الناس أن ينازعهم فيها و ل نخرج عليهم و ل
نقر لغيرهم بها إلى قيام الساعة
"Caliphate should remain in Quraish even if there remain only two people and no
one among the people has the right to dispute them about it nor rebel against them
nor recognize anyone for it other than them till the hour establishes."
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini records the statement of Imam Ibn Jawzi in Umadatul
Qari, Volume 5 page 228:
فإن الخلفة في قريش ل مدخل فيها لغيرهم.... : قال ابن الجوزي
Ibn al-Jawzi said: '...Khilafa should remain in Quraish and there is no way for other
than them'.
"Verily, after Him [s], the Khalifa of Allah's Messenger [s] is from them (Quraish)
and it is not permissible to appoint someone who is not from them."
In light of the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr and the subsequent ruling of the grand Sunni
Ulema, we are much more entitled to make the same claim, namely:
The Sunnis adamantly believe that the leadership of the Muslims cannot go outside
one lineage, namely that of the Prophet [s].
34. Reply – Ibn al Hashmi failed to point out that Sunni Islam deems
Khilafat the exclusive right of the Quraysh
The hilarious thing is that Abu Bakr would certainly not concur with this. He relied on a hadeeth
that evidenced that the leadership of the Muslims must be confined to one family – the tribe of
Muhammad [s] – the Quraysh. Taking this position on, does this not run contrary to ‘the
egalitarian spirit of Islam’ that Hashimi claims? When (according to Abu Bakr) ‘The Imams are
from the Quraish’ – a point that has lead to his leading advocates such as Mawardi and Ibn
Khaldun stating that Imamate can only remain in this tribe then this automatically makes
Imamate a Divine right to rule for the Quraish – and if Ibn Hashimi is honest to his readers he
will have to accept that the Sunni doctrine of Imamate runs contrary to the egalatarian spirit,
rather it is a divine right that falls only on the Quraysh, as this was the tribe of the Prophet [s],
and Imamate is eternally linked to this tribe. Now look at the difference between these two
stances of divine right that ibn al Hashimi is making a hue and cry over. The Shias have
restricted the divine right of Imamate to a restricted number of people who are infallible.
Infallibility is eternally linked to the divine right to rule. Those that Allah [swt] showered with
infallibility are at a level that no one else in the Ummah possesses. If Allah [swt] bestowed such
perfection upon twelve descendants of Muhammad [s] and placed them on the station of
Imamah, then this divine right is indeed restrictive in nature, and limited purely to those that
excel above all others in the Ummah. Compare this to the divine right in Sunni Islam that until
the Day of Judgment remains a right linked to the tribe of the Prophet [s], a divine right
without any other conditions that means:
1. Imamah is the divine right of the Quraysh.
2. When the Khalifa / Imam dies his position can only be occupied by one from the tribe
of Quraysh
3. Even if the world is populated with Muslims, the right of Imamah remains the divine
right of the Quraysh, no one else
4. The whole Ummah is dependent upon submitting the divine right of Imamah bestowed
on the Quraysh
5. If there exists on the earth a non Qurayshite with the excellences of piety, knowledge,
religious devotion, agreed upon by Muslims, even then he has no right to lead the
Muslims, since Imamah is the divine right of the Quraysh. The excellences of others are
null and void, since they do not belong to the tribe of Quraysh.
The Shia that al Hashimi mocks believe in the divine right of the Ahl’ul bayt Imams [as]
because they are the best in the Ummah, the Creator has bestowed upon them excellences
and crucially their infallibility provides a guarantee to the Ummah that they will never get lead
astray. Now consider the divine right that Ibn-al Hashimi mocks, to that which he adheres to, is
this logical and correct? A divine right that is not based in any way on excellence in the Ummah,
excellence does not even come into the equation rather the divine right to rule is linked
exclusively due to sharing one’s tribal lineage with the Prophet [s].
As a starting point Ibn al-Hashimi is suggesting that hereditary kingship as he defines it has no
correlation with Islam. The amusing thing is, in Sunni Islam this method of appointing a Khalifa
through hereditary kingship is totally acceptable. If the Sunni Caliphates of the Ummayad and
Abbaside Caliphates were not hereditary kingships what on earth were they? Have Sunni Ulema
ever deemed these Caliphates as illegal because they were Hereditary Kingships? The Shia
doctrine of then infallibility of the twelve imams means that the appointment of a wretched or
vile person does not even come into the equation – Allah [swt] chooses the infallible leaders –
that is it. His isn’t the case with the Sunni doctrine of Imamate that is the exclusive right of the
Quraysh. To paraphrase Ibn Hashimi:
Hereditary kingship entails that certain people are created superior to others based simply on
who their parents are, and whose womb they come from – namely the tribe of Quraysh. A
prince becomes king simply because he was born from a mother who is a queen and a father
who is a Quraysh king. He could be the most wretched and vile person on earth, but this does
not matter because he was born to the right family – namely the Quraysh.
This is the Sunni stance on divine Imamate that Ibn Hashimi conveniently fails to mention a
doctrine formulated by Abu Bakr, and then marketed into kingship by Muawiyah, who appointed
‘the most wretched and vile person on earth’ – Yazeed – but that was fine since he attained the
bayya of some of the Sahaba! One of the Nasibi brethren website of http://www.ahlelbayt.com/
i.e. www.ansar.org stated:
Ansar.org states:
Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to
give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to
take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So
he consulted the grandest companions, the
masters of the people and the district's
governors. They all accepted. Delegations from
the districts came with acceptance to give
allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him
the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-
Maqdisay says: "His (Yazeed's) caliphate is
rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet
Ibn Hashimi, if you find the doctrine of hereditary succession devoid of morals abhorrent then
you really need to issue that takfeer pen against your (spiritual) father Muawiyah who opened
the door to this filthy custom. We have Ansar.Org’s own admission that Muawiyah appointed
Yazeed as his crown prince. If this isn’t hereditary succession devoid of morals then what is it?
In light of the comments of Ansar.Org let us just consider the method of appointment
associated with hereditary kingship. It is where a successor is appointed without any
consultation, but is imposed upon the people as the heir apparent, who are duty bound to obey
him. Umar without any consultation gave bayya to Abu Bakr, making him the Khalifa, leaving
the Muslims to give public bayya to the appointment. Abu Bakr likewise sought no consultation
when he appointed Umar as his successor; he merely asked that the Sahaba give bayya to the
appointment. What makes this method different to the bayya that was given to Yazeed and the
other hereditary kings? Were the Sahaba not asked to give public bayya to Abu Bakr, without
consultation, in exactly the same manner that they gave bayya to Yazeed. Is it not curious that
when Abu Bakr and Umar attain power through this method, it is deemed the method to
appoint a rightly guided Khalifa, but when Yazeed attains power through the same method he is
described as a King, rather than a Khalifa? Why the blatant difference?
38. Reply – Imamate is restricted to the twelve Ahl’ul bayt Imams (as)
This would be a discomforting notion if the Shia were to believe that every descendant of
Muhammad [s] inherited the title of Imam on account of his lineage, but this is not the case.
The mantle of Imamate through lineage is a divine right restricted to 12 descendants of
Muhammad (s), no one else can have that title. The entire progeny are not deemed most
superior rather the 12 Imams are. They are indeed born Imams, and Allah [swt] showers them
with excellences because they have been given the immense task of leadership for the Ummah
in accordance with the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. Just like Prophet Isa [as] and Prophet
Yahyah [as] who were given such tasks from the time of birth and hence were given all virtues
and worthy attributes (without any striving on their part) and they were adorned with all such
lofty characteristics.
And again:
The Hadith
39. Reply – Was Prophet Ibrahim (as) being ignorant for supplicating that
Prophethood and Imamate remain in his lineage?
Notice how none of these references have anything to do with the doctrine of Imamah. It refers
to not to have arrogance about your lineage. Arrogance is one thing, Imamate is another. The
right of the Ahl’ul bayt [as] to rule over the Ummah is not based on some arrogance on the part
of Muhammad [s]. The creator who placed Nubuwwa in one family likewise placed Imamah in
one family, and showed with the Imamate with special grace needed to lead the Ummah. If this
is deemed arrogance then shall we conclude bigotry on the part of Ibrahim [as]:
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which
he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And
also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the
reach of evil-doers."
(Quran)
Ibrahim [as] was asking for Imamah to remain in his descendants, if this was an arrogant
supplication disliked by the Creator why did He [swt] grant the supplication with this caveat?
Rasulullah [s] praised and exalted his progeny BECAUSE Allah [swt] had bestowed the
responsibility of leadership upon them. Rasulullah [s] by citing this favor and their excellence
was providing a clear steer for the Ummah, where to turn to for assistance.
What does this doctrine have to do with Imamah? We have no dispute with this text. People
will indeed be judged on their Taqwa not on their birth. When it comes to religious leadership
then like Prophethood, Imamate is also divine and as such Allah [swt] appoints whoever he
chooses, and in this instance he appointed those descendants from the Itrat (progeny) of
Muhammad that he blessed with superior knowledge and infallibility.
43. Reply One – Allah (swt) designated divine leadership in one lineage
Prophets are Prophets from birth; they are not offered this post by Allah [swt] because they are
the best of character and possess the greatest Taqwa . They possess these excellences because
they are Prophets, so being selected as some reward doesn’t even come into the equation! As
for selection due to one’s lineage, Prophets were selected through lineage, so birth right was a
factor, if it wasn’t then Prophethood would not have passed through one lineage! If there are
attempts to reject this notion, then what does Ibn Hashimi say to the accepted du’a of Ibrahim
[as] that Imamate remain in his lineage thus making birth right a criterion for Imamate? This
automatically means that Allah [swt] bestowed Imamate in one family, BUT then He [swt]
placed a condition – that they do not commit injustice – we have already evidenced that all
transgression if deemed as injustice in the eyes of Allah [swt] and the worship of Iblis. In this
verse Allah [swt] does not state Imamah will go just to those that are pious amongst the
descendants of Ibrahim, rather it will go to those that are no unjust. Exactly the same is the
case with Imamate after Muhammad [s] – Allah [swt] appointed the 12 Imams from the
descendants as the inheritors of the mission of Muhammad [s] – those that never committed
any form of injustice because they were showered with infallibility.
44. Reply Two – The Fatwa of Umar prohibiting the entry of non Arabs in
Madina proves that Imamate is based on Arab lineage not Taqwa
Immediately after the death the centre for political power was Madina. It was from here that
the Khalifa ruled. Anyone with a desire to attain power would hence need to have some
association with Madina. Ibn al Hashimi would of course like his Sunni readership to believe the
caliphate was so fair (from the outset) that anyone wishing to attain power from whatever
position in the social strata could work towards achieving that dream. The reality was very
different. Imam Abdulrazaq al-San’ani records in his authority work Al-Musanaf, Volume 5 page
474:
كان عمر بن الخطاب ل يترك أحدا من العجم يدخل المدينة: عبدالرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري قال
Abdulrazaq – Mu'amar – Al-Zuhari said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab didn’t allow any one of
the non Arab to enter Madina.’
Abdulrazaq: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v2 p609), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’
(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599). Mu'amar: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190), Ibn
Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’
(Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p40), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’
(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).
Comment
When Umar had prohibited non Arabs from entering Madina not only did he deny them the
right to perform pilgrims of the tomb of the Prophet (s) he also negated the right of all non
Arabs from having a say in the running of the Islamic State, whether that be as advisers or a
future khalifa. How could a non Arab of good character and brimming with taqwa hoe to
become Khalifa when he was not even permitted to enter Madina, the heart of political power?
Is this edict egalitarian in nature?
45. Ibn al Hashimi’s assertion that Taqwa determines rank not birthright
46. Reply One – Prophets are endowed with excellence long before
exhibiting signs of Taqwa
First of all, would Ibn al-Hashimi like to tell us what level of Taqwa did the unborn Isa [as]
exhibit when his mother was given glad tidings of the birth of a prophet? Amongst the matters
of which Gabriel [as] conveys to her, is this fact:
[003.048-49 YUSUFALI]
"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel, …"And
(appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message):
The Prophethood of Yahya [as] was likewise foretold whilst he was still in the blessed loins of
his father.:
[003.039 YUSUFALI]
While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "Allah
doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and
(be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the
righteous."
Then we read:
'O Yahya! Take hold of the Book with might,' And We gave him the appointment (of
prophethood) in his childhood." (Quran 19:12)
“The meaning of {granted him wisdom while yet a child} is magnification given to
him, because He made him prophet while he was a child, there cannot more
magnification than that.”
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 10 page 277
47. Reply Two – The Ahl’ul bayt (as) Imams are the greatest in Taqwa
We repeat our stance that Imamate is not a rank based on Taqwa. We challenge this Nasibi to
produce us a SINGLE VERSE wherein Allah [swt] says that the criterion for appointing Imams is
Taqwa and nothing else. If this was true the Sunni scholars of jurisprudence would include this
as the first criterion for Imamate – but they didn’t – it doesn’t even come into the equation.
Even if we accept that piety is the criterion for Imamah, then this Nasibi will still not be able to
escape from the appointment of Maula Ali [as] and the other Imams [as] for our Prophet [s]
said:
"Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al
Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa
Qa'id ul Ghurrul Muhajj'ileen (Leader of the bright) face people on Yaum al
Qiyamah".
1. Al Mustadrak, by Imam Hakim, Vol 3 p 137 & 138
2. Riyad al Nadira, by Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 2, p 122
‘Whoever wants to board the boat of salvation, and take the firm handle, and grasp
the firm Rope of Allah [swt] should love ‘Ali and be an enemy to his enemies, and
from the lineage of ‘Ali he should follow the Imams of Guidance. Verily these are my
Khalifas and the Proofs of Allah [swt] after me. These are the Chieftains of my
Ummah and the Leaders of the Pious entering Paradise. This group is my group and
my group is the group of Allah [swt]. Their enemies group is the group of Shaytan”
YaNabi al Mawaddat, pages 503-504
48. Sunni Islam does not deem Taqwa as the criterion for Imamate
If Taqwa does indeed determine the rank of Imamate, what of those Imams that were devoid
of the Taqwa from the Banu Umayya and Banu Abbaside dynasties – has any Sunni scholar
past or present ruled that their Imamates over the nations were unlawful because such men
were devoid of Taqwa?
Tell us Ibn Hashimi, was Taqwa the criterion used by Muawiya to appoint his drunkard,
homosexual son as the Imam over the nations? Did the Sahaba that ratified this ‘nomination’
consider Taqwa as the factor that influenced their bayya. When your great Sahaba did not
deem Taqwa a factor when determining Imamah, rather you can appoint a Fasiq as the Head of
State, what evidence do you have to claim that Imamate is based on one’s Taqwa?
The very fact that you Sunni Ulema have deemed the Khilafath of tyrants legitimate proves that
Taqwa is not the pre-requisite for being the leader of the Muslim State. Take the example of
Yazeed (la), we are sure that Ibn al Hashimi would not openly deem him to be pious, yet his
Imamate is deemed legitimate, even after the ransacking of Madina, that involved the slaughter
of the Sahaba that withdrew support for him and the rape of their women folk, Ibn Umar
maintained loyal support for him:
I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of
Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in
accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle.
Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
The article ‘Imamah the Antithesis of Egalitarianism’ was an emotional appeal to ‘open
minded’ Shia to free themselves of the shackles of Shiaism and embrace Sunnism. To enable
this the author sought to present the Shi’a doctrine of Imamate as an unfair belief, that by
believing imamate is a divine right, negates the right of others from being Khalifas of the
Prophet (s). The difficulty for the author is simple, once you have successfully taken people
away from the Shi’a doctrine, you will need to a better alternative to fill that gap. Just think of
the idea of selling a house. This is a difficult, traumatic process. It is time consuming,
expensive, and involves a massive upheaval. So why do we do it? Simple all of this is being
done, because we are moving into a better more luxurious house that will improve the quality
of life for one’s entire family. There would be no logic in moving into a house that was less
luxurious, more cramped, damp, or poorly constructed. Faced with such a prospect, rather than
moving house, the reasonable person would feel it was better to stay within the confines of his
existing home. The problem is Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to convince the Shi’a to vacate their
homes and move into his, without showing this better home that he occupies. When we see
that the alternative that he is offering us is neither better, more accommodating nor attractive
to us, then what is the sense in us moving into your house?
The Shia doctrine of Imamate is based on excellence the best man for the position if appointed
by the Creator to meet the needs of the people. People have no say in the matter the principle
of egalitarianism doesn’t come into the equation since this is a right of Allah [swt] alone. The
Sunni doctrine of Imamate is likewise non egalitarian, a person that attains power can do so
through any means necessary, methods can include a small committee, direct appointment
through to military coup all are sound. The only stipulation is that the person be of Quraysh
lineage, apart from that his character, or his lack of one forms no bar to his being the Khalifa of
the Prophet [s] he remains in charge and the Ummah is duty bound to obey him. If this
Nawasib continues to fool his Sunni readership into suggesting that the Shia doctrine of
appointment through divine designation is false and runs contrary to the a doctrine that should
egalitarian in spirit and consistent with fairness – then we suggest he leaves the Islamic faith,
and adheres to the madhab of Harith bin Numan who advanced the same type of arguments to
Rasulullah [s] following his appointment of Maula Ali [as] at Ghadeer Khumm.
The real indigestion that Ibn al Hashimi has is the Shia belief that Maula Ali [as] was divinely
appointed by Allah [swt] through Rasulullah [s]. That is what motivates him. Let us quote
another motivated individual with similar leanings like him. The renowned imam of Ahl’ul
Sunnah Halabi and others have recorded the event:
On the day of Ghadir the Messenger of Allah summoned the people toward 'Ali and
said: "Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla." The news spread quickly all over
urban and rural areas. When Harith Ibn Nu'man al-Fahri (or Nadhr Ibn Harith
according to another tradition) came to know of it, he rode his camel and came to
Madinah and went to the Messenger of Allah [s] and said to him: "You commanded
us to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah.
We obeyed you. You ordered us to perform the prayers five times a day and we
obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan and we
obeyed. Then you commanded us to offer pilgrimage to Makkah and we obeyed. But
you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by your hand and
imposed him upon us as our master by saying `Ali is the mawla of whom I am
mawla.' Is this imposition from Allah or from you?"
The Prophet [s] said: "By Allah who is the only deity! This is from Allah, the Mighty
"A questioner questioned about the punishment to fall. For the disbelievers there is
nothing to avert it, from Allah the Lord of the Ascent." (70:1-3)
al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din Ali bin Burhan ud-din al-Halabi, v3, part 2, page 336 &
337
1. Al-Kashaf wal Bayan fi Tafsir al Quran by Abu Ishaq Thalabi, commentary of verse Surah 70
Verses 1 to 3
2. Nur al-Absar, Shaykh Shiblanji, p119
3. Mufti Ghulam Rasool quoted the same incident from ‘Tadkiratul Khawwas’ page 39 in his
book Imam Zain al Abdeen, pages 49-51
4. Online Tafseer Qurtubi, under the commentary of 70:2
5. Online Faiz al Qadeer Shrah Jami al-Sagheer by Imam Abdurauf al-Munawi, Volume 6
page 218 No. 9000
if the Shia belief that Imamat is divine starting with Maula Ali [as], is not egalitarian in spirit
and inconsistent with fairness – why did Rasulullah [s] not take on board such views advanced
by this Nasibi?
The refusal of Rasulullah [s] to accept this argument and the punishment by Allah [swt] shall
suffice as proof that Imamate is certainly not egalitarian in nature. His view seems to be
strikingly similar to Harith bin Numan, so why doesn’t Ibn al-Hashimi just stop practicing
taqiyyah and openly admit that he shares the same beliefs on Imamate as Harith bin Numan, in
other words he is a Nasibi?
8. Copyright
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these Answering-Ansar.org web pages are
owned or controlled for these purposes by the Answering-Ansar.org team.
You can distribute the download version of "Adobe® PDF" documents of the Answering-
Ansar.org articles, as long as the documents remain in their original state and none of the
contents are modified in any format.
The Answering-Ansar.org reserves the right over the contents of the articles if they are used in
the original format. You can freely distribute the Islamic references and quotes that we use in
our articles in any format.
When using our articles in your websites or if in distribution in print format, please include the
source as Answering-Ansar.org.
Our web site contains links to third party sites. These links are used for the convenience of our
users; however, they are not under the control of Answering-Ansar.org. We are not responsible
for their contents, nor should they be considered endorsements of the individual linked sites.
However, it is possible that the site could contain typographical errors. If such a condition is
brought to our attention, a reasonable effort will be made to fix or remove it.
If you wish to reproduce, print and distribute our articles in book format, then you will need a
written permission of Answering-Ansar.org. If you wish to do so, then please contact us for
further details.