Were Talha and Zubair not among the companions who pledged allegiance
under the tree? Did they not oppose the rightful successor of
the Holy Prophet, the acknowledged fourth caliph according to
your own belief. Were not these companions responsible for the
bloodshed of innumerable Muslims? Now please let us know which
of these two groups of companions who fought with each other was
the truly guided one. If you say that, since both groups were
obedient both were on the right side, you will be wrong. It is
impossible to claim that opposing factions are both guided.
It therefore follows that the companions who were on the side
of Ali were definitely the guided ones. The group on the opposite
side took the wrong way; and this is another proof to refute your
statement that all those companions who were present in Bai'at-e-Rizwan,
under the tree, were rightly guided. Among those who pledged fealty
under the tree were these two, Talha and Zubair, who also fought
against the rightful caliph. They actually fought against the
one about whom the Holy Prophet had said: "O Ali, fighting
against thee is fighting against me." Doesn't it amount to
fighting against the Holy Prophet of Allah? So how can you say
that the word Ashab or presence under the tree of allegiance is
a guarantee for salvation?
Mu'awiya and 'Amr As were companions and yet they fought against
the successor of the Holy Prophet and cursed and abused Ali at
public meetings and even in the addresses given after Jum'a (Friday)
prayers. They did so despite the fact, as reported by prominent
ulema of your sect in their authentic books, that the Holy Prophet
had repeatedly said, "He who abuses or curses Ali, abuses
me. He who abuses me, abuses Allah."
The learned Taftazani has elaborately dealt with this topic in
his Sharhe Maqasid. He writes that since the companions were inimical
to one another, some of them had deviated from the right path.
Some of them, on account of envy and worldly aspirations, perpetrated
all kinds of cruelty. It is evident that most of the companions
who were not ma'sum (infallible) committed heinous acts. But some
ulema because they favored them, have tried to cover up their
There are many clear arguments to reject the hadith in question.
There is no doubt that this hadith is forged. Many of your ulema
have expressed their doubts about the authenticity of its sources.
After quoting this hadith in his Sharhu'sh-Shifa, v.II, p.91, Qazi Ayaz says
that Darqutni in his Faza'il and Ibn Abdu'l-Birr say that this hadith is not
It is also narrated from Abd Bin Hamid in his Musnad who quotes
from Abdullah Ibn Umar that Bazar refused to acknowledge the authenticity
of this hadith. Also he says that Ibn Adi quotes in his Kamil
with his own references from Nafi, and he from Abdullah Ibn Umar,
that the sources of this hadith are very weak. Baihaqi is also
reported to have written that the matter of this hadith is commonly
known but its sources are weak.
Among the sources of this hadith are Harith Bin Ghazin, whose character is unknown, and Hamza Ibn Abi Hamza Nussairi, who was charged with lying. The weakness of the hadith is evident. Ibn Hazm also says that this hadith is a fabricated one and is to be rejected.
So in our argument we cannot rely on a hadith with such a weak
chain of sources. Even assuming, however, that the hadith were
correct, it could not be applied in the general sense; it would
refer only to the devoted and pious companions who, in accordance
with the command of the Holy Prophet followed the book of Allah
and the holy progeny of the Prophet.
Having said this, if I criticize some of the companions, you shouldn't
consider me unjust. They were after all, human beings and were
likely to err.
Hafiz: We also believe that
the companions were not infallible, but at the same time it is
an accepted fact that all of them were righteous people. No fault
was committed by them.
Well-Wisher: You claim too much
if you insist that they were all just and free from faults since
in the authentic books written by your own ulema they argue against
it. They tell us that even some of the chief companions sometimes
Hafiz: We are not aware of such
records. Please let us know about them if you can.
Well-Wisher: Ignoring what they
did during the days of ignorance (i.e. before the advent of Islam),
they committed many sins after they had embraced Islam. It is
enough to mention only one event by way of example.
Your own prominent ulema write in their authentic books that in
the year of the conquest of Mecca (8 A.H.) some of the leading
companions indulged in festive amusements and gaiety and secretly
Hafiz: This is definitely a
concocted story. When drinking was announced to be unlawful, the
respected companions did not so much as attend such parties, not
to mention drinking wine.
Well-Wisher: It was never concocted
by opponents. If it was concocted at all, it was done by your
Nawab: If there were such a party, the names of the host and the guests also must have been mentioned. Can you explain that point?
Well-Wisher: Yes, your own ulema
have explained it.
Ibn Hajar writes in his Fathu'l-Bari, v.X, p.30, that Abu Talha
Zaid Bin Sahl arranged a wine party at his house and invited ten
people. All of them drank wine and Abu Bakr recited some couplets
commemorating some infidels who were killed in the battle of Badr.
Nawab: Have the names of the
guests also been mentioned? If so, please let us know.
Well-Wisher: (1) Abu Bakr Bin
Abi Qahafa, (2) Umar Ibn Khattab, (3) Abu Ubaida Garra, (4) Ubai
Bin Ka'b, (5) Sahl Bin Baiza, (6) Abu Ayyub Ansari, (7) Abu Talha
(the host), (8) Abu Dajjana Samak Bin Kharsa, (9) Abu Bakr Bin
Shaghuls, (10) Anas Bin Malik, who was 18 years old at that time
and who served the wine. Baihaqi in his Sunan, v. VIII, p.29,
has also narrated from Anas him self that he said that he was
the youngest of them at that time and was serving the wine. (At
this there was great commotion in the meeting.)
Sheikh: I swear by Allah that
this story has been concocted by the enemy!
Well-Wisher: You are too much
agitated and you have made a profane oath! But you are not totally
at fault. Your studies are limited. If you had read more widely,
you would know that your own ulema have written all this. Now
you should seek Allah's pardon.
I am now constrained to explain facts according to the statements
of your own ulema. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in Sahih (commenting
on Ayat-e-Khamr, "verse concerning wine", in the chapter
Ma'ida of the Qur'an); Muslim Ibn Hajar in his Sahih (Kitab-e-Ashraba
Bab-e-Tahrimu'l-Khamr); Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, v.XXX,
p.181 and 227; Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, v.XI, p.93; Jalalu'd-din
Suyuti in his Durru'l-Mansur, v.II, p.321; Tabari in his Tafsir,
v.VII, p.24; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Isaba, v.IV, p.22 and Fathu'l-Bari,
v.X,p.30; Badru'd-din Hanafi in his Umdatu'l-Qari, V.X, p.84;
Baihaqi in his Sunan, pp.286 and 290; and others have recorded
these facts with detailed explanations.
Sheikh: Perhaps these things took place before wine was made unlawful.
Well-Wisher: What we gather
from the commentary and history shows that even after the prohibitory
verses some Muslims and companions continued taking forbidden
Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari reports in Tafsir-e-Kabir, v.II, p.203,
on the authority of Abil Qamus Zaid Bin Ali, who said that Allah
had revealed three times the verses prohibiting the use of wine.
In the first verse He says, "They ask you about intoxicants
and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin
and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their
But the Muslims did not immediately give up wine. When two men,
being intoxicated, offered their prayers and talked nonsense,
another verse was revealed, saying: "O you who believe! do
not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well)
what you say." (4:43)
Even after this, the drinking of wine continued, but people did
not offer prayers while intoxicated. One day a man took wine (according
to the report of Bazar, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Mardawiyya the man
was Abu Bakr) and composed an elegy for the pagans who were killed
in the battle of Badr. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he
became angry. He went to the party and wanted to beat him. The
man said, "I seek Allah's shelter from Allah's and His Prophet's
wrath. Allah be my witness, I will not take wine again."
Then the following verse was revealed: "O you who believe!
intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set
up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's
work; shun it therefore that you may be successful." (5:90)
Among the companions of the Holy Prophet there were good and bad
men just as there are among other believers and Muslims. Those
of them who tried to obey Allah and His Prophet reached an exalted
rank. Those who followed their worldly aspirations were looked
down upon by others. So those who fault the worldly companions
do so with some reason. The wicked actions of some of the sahaba
which are recorded in the authentic books of your own ulema are
also condemnable according to the evidence of the Holy Qur'an.
The Shias condemn them on that basis. If there is a logical reply
to this argument, we are ready to accept it.
Well-Wisher: It is astonishing
that even after hearing their condemnable qualities (I have mentioned
only a few out of a large number) you still ask me about their
misdeeds! Now I should like to submit another example of their
odious actions, which are recorded in all the books of both the
sects: the breaking of their pledge. Allah has made it compulsory
to keep one's promise. He says: "And fulfill the covenant
of Allah when you have made a covenant, and do not break the oaths
after making them fast." (16:91)
And again Allah has called those who break a pledge the cursed
ones. He says: "And those who break the covenant of Allah
after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered
to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon
them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil issue of the
So it is clear both from the Qur'anic verses and from a large
number of hadith that breaking a pledge is a great sin, particularly
a pledge made with Allah and His Prophet. The seriousness of this
offense was graver for the companions of the Holy Prophet.
Hafiz: What pledge with Muhammad
did the companions break? How can it come under the target of
the Qur'anic verses?
I think that if you consider the matter carefully you will admit
that all these things are sheer concoctions of the Shias. The
companions of the Holy Prophet were free from all such actions.
Well-Wisher: I have told you
repeatedly that the Shias are pledged to follow their leaders.
Otherwise they cannot be Shias. The Holy Qur'an has given evidence
of their leader's truthfulness. Your prominent ulema, for instance,
Imam Tha'labi and Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti in their Tafsir, Hafiz Abu
Nu'aim Ispahani in his Ma Nazal mina'l-Qur'an fi Ali, Khatib Khawarizmi
in Manaqib, Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda,
ch.39, narrating from Khawarizmi, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim and Hamwaini
and Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.62
- all of them have quoted from the history of the great scholar
Muhaddith-e-Sham that in the holy verse "O you who believe!
be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the truthful ones."
The truthful ones refers to Muhammad and Ali. So the followers
of this exalted family cannot be liars or forgers because he alone
would tell lies or fabricate stories who has no true and strong
reasons to fall back upon this cause. What the Shias say has been
written by your own ulema. First you should object to your ulema,
who wrote these things. Had your ulema not written about the pledge-breaking
of the sahaba in their authentic books, I would not have mentioned
it in this meeting.
Hafiz: Who of the Sunni ulema
has written that the sahaba broke the pledge. Simply vain talking
Well-Wisher: I am not merely
talking. My argument is completely logical. The companions broke
their pledge a number of times. They broke the fealty for which
the Prophet of Allah had commanded them; the most important was
the pledge and fealty at Ghadir-e-Khum.