Sheikh: Kindly cite one example
of such a change.
Well-Wisher: There are many
examples; two should suffice to make my point. I will discuss
mut'a (temporary marriage) and hajj nisa. Both sects agree that
these two practices were common during the time of the Prophet.
Moreover, they were practiced during Abu Bakr's caliphate and
also during part of Umar's caliphate. But Caliph Umar brought
about a complete reversal of the Qur'anic order. He said, "Two
mut'as were in effect during the time of the Holy Prophet. I now
decree both of them unlawful and will punish those who engage
in this practice."
What was made lawful by Allah was suddenly abrogated. Umar's decree
was so widely promulgated and so blindly followed that the original
law soon fell into oblivion. Even today many of our Sunni brothers
regard mut'a as an innovation of the Shia.
If Umar's whim could overturn the clear ordinance of Allah and
the historical fact that mut'a was practiced, can you doubt that
Abu Talib's well known belief could also be denied?
Sheikh: Are you saying that
millions of Muslims have violated the injunctions of the Qur'an
and the sunna of the Prophet? Remember, the whole world calls
us Sunnis, i.e., followers of the sunna. The Shia are called Rafizis,
i.e., those who stray from the sunna of the Prophet.
Well-Wisher: In reality the
Shias are Sunnis, that is, they follow the Holy Qur'an and the
sunna of the Holy Prophet. You people are Rafizis because you
violate the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and the commands of
Sheikh: This is strange indeed!
You have transformed millions of pure Muslims into Rafizis! Can
you advance any argument to support this?
Well-Wisher: I have already
told you during previous nights that the Holy Prophet instructed
us that after him we should follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny.
But you people deliberately abandoned the progeny of the Prophet
and followed others. You rejected the practices of the Holy Prophet.
You left those people by order of your two sheikhs and then call
the real followers of the sunna of the Holy Prophet Rafizis.
Among such orders there is another explicit injunction in the
Holy Qur'an which says, "And know that whatever thing you
gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle and for the
near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the way fairer."
(8:41) The Holy Prophet observed this order and gave khums (1/5)
of the wealth acquired from the enemy to his relatives and kinsmen.
But you people opposed this practice.
The practice of mut'a is another case in point. It was in accordance
with Allah's command. It was sanctioned by the Prophet and his
companions. The practice continued during Abu Bakr's caliphate
and also during a part of Umar's caliphate. But at the command
of Umar you people have made unlawful what Allah made lawful.
Moreover, you have rejected the sunna of the Holy Prophet. And
yet you call yourselves Sunnis and call us Rafizis.
Caliph Umar himself did not advance any reason for his revoking
the divine order. The Sunni ulema have tried in vain to prove
that Caliph Umar's decision was just.
Sheikh: Can you prove the lawfulness
of mut'a? Can you prove that Caliph Umar violated the Qur'anic
injunction and the sunna of the Holy Prophet?
Well-Wisher: The strongest proof
is furnished by the Holy Qur'an. In the sura of Nisa (The Women)
Allah says: "...then as to those by whom you benefited (from
mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." (4:24)
Obviously the Holy Qur'an's command is obligatory forever unless
it is abrogated by the Qur'an, itself. Since it has not been abrogated,
this command holds good forever.
Sheikh: How is this verse not
related to permanent wedlock? It is this same verse that gives
instruction about paying back dowry.
Well-Wisher: You have confused
the main point. Your own prominent ulema, like Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir,
part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib,
part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.
Apart from the explicit interpretation of your ulema and commentators,
you are also aware that throughout the entire sura of Nisa, several
kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent
marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk-e-Yamin
(servants). For permanent marriage the Holy Qur'an says in the
sura of Nisa: "Then marry such women as seem good to you,
two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice
(between them), then only one or what your right hands possess."
About Mulk-e-yamin (servants), Allah says: "And whoever among
you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free
believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right
hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows
best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry
them with the permission of their masters and give them their
dowries justly." (4:25)
The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: "...as
to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their
dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage.
It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would
mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock
has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it
is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.
Second, not only Shias but all Muslims agree that mut'a was practiced
during the early days of Islam. The distinguished companions practiced
it in the time of the Holy Prophet. If this verse refers to permanent
wedlock then which is the verse for mut'a? Evidently this is the
verse regarding mut'a, which your own commentators have accepted.
There is no verse in the Holy Qur'an which abrogates this command.
It is reported in Sahih of Bukhari and the Musnad of Imam Ibn
Hanbal from Abu Raja on the authority of Imran Ibn Hasin that
"...the verse of mut'a was revealed in the Book of Allah.
So we acted in accordance with it during the time of the Holy
Prophet. No verse was revealed to make it unlawful, nor did the
Holy Prophet ever prohibit it." One man decided to change
this law. Bukhari says that the man was Umar.
Muslim in his Sahih, part I, in the chapter of Nikatu'l-Mut'a,
says "Hasan Halwa'i reported to us that he was told by Abdu'r-Razzaq,
who was informed by Ibn Jarih, who was told by 'Ata that Jabir
Ibn Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca for the Umra and they went to
him at his residence. People asked him many questions. When they
came to the question of mut'a he said, 'Yes, we used to practice
mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the caliphate
of Abu Bakr and Umar.'" Also in the same book in part I,
in the chapter of al-Mut'a Bi'l-Hajj wa'l-Umra, it is narrated
on the authority of Abu Nazara that he said: "I was in the
company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari when a man came and said,
'There is a difference of opinion between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair
concerning the two mut'as, Mut'atu'n-Nisa and Mut'atu'l-Hajj.'
Then Jabir said, 'We have performed both of these during the time
of the Holy Prophet. Thereafter, when Umar forbade it, we could
not do it.'"
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, part I, p.25, narrates Abu
Nazara's report in another way. Also both narrate another report
from Jabir that he said: "In the days of the Holy Prophet
and Abu Bakr, we used to practice mut'a for the consideration
of a handful of dates and flour until Umar forbade it in the case
of Amr Bin Harith."
Hamidi, in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, narrates from Abdullah
Ibn Abbas that he said: "We used to practice mut'a during
the time of the Holy Prophet. When Umar was caliph, he said that
'Allah Almighty made lawful whatever He liked for His Holy Prophet.
Now he is dead, and the Qur'an takes his place. So when you begin
the Hajj or the Umra, you should complete them as Allah has ordered
you. You should repent of and abstain from mut'a. Bring him who
has practiced mut'a to me so that I may stone him.'"
There are many such reports in your own reliable books showing
that mut'a was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet.
The companions practiced it until Umar made it unlawful.
Besides these reports, some of the companions, like Ubayy Ibn
Ka'b, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id Ibn Jabir and Sa'd
have recited the verse of mut'a in this way, "And as such
of them you had mut'a with until such time as was fixed."
Jarullah Zamakhshari reports in his Kashshaf from Ibn Abbas and
also Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir and Imam
Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, writing
about this holy verse and Imam Nuwi in his Sharh-e-Muslim, chapter
I, Nikatu'l-Mut'a report from Nazari that Qazi Ayaz stated that
"Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, the writer of wahi (i.e., recorder
of revelations), used to recite this verse in the same way, that
is, 'until such time as has been fixed.'"
Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, after quoting the statement of Ubayy Ibn
Ka'b and Ibn Abbas, said: "The community did not reject their
recitation of the verse in this way, so what we have said has
been accepted through consensus." Again on the next page
he argues in this way: "This reading evidently proves that
mut'a had the sanction of religion. We have no difference of opinion
that mut'a was permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet."
Sheikh: Can you prove that it
was lawful during the days of the Holy Prophet but was not repealed
Well-Wisher: There is plenty
of proof that it was not annulled. The most convincing argument
is that mut'a had been permitted from the time of the Holy Prophet
until the middle of the caliphate of Umar.
Caliph Umar's own statement has been generally reported by your
ulema. They have written that he went to the pulpit and said,
"In the time of the Prophet two mut'as were permitted. I
make both of them unlawful, and if any one does it, I will punish
Sheikh: What you say is correct,
but my point is that there are many orders which were current
earlier in the time of the Holy Prophet but were repealed later.
Mut'a was also permitted in the beginning, but later it was forbidden.
Well-Wisher: Since the basis
and foundation of religion is the Holy Qur'an, if any ordinance
is present in the Holy Qur'an and is abrogated, its abrogation
must also be present in it. Now please let me know where in the
Holy Qur'an this order has been repealed.
Sheikh: In sura 23, Mu'minin
(The Believers), verse 6 repeals this order. It says "Except
before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for
surely they are not blameworthy." (22:6)
This verse lays down two conditions for conjugal relations: marriage,
or intercourse with slaves. So this verse proves that the ordinance
of mut'a has been repealed.
Well-Wisher: This verse does
not in any way prove that mut'a was repealed; it confirms it.
The woman united by mut'a is the real wife of the man. Had she
not been his real wife, Allah would not have ordered her mehr
(dowry) to be paid. Moreover, the sura of The Believers was revealed
while the Prophet was in Mecca, the sura of Women while he was
in Medina. Obviously the Meccan chapters preceded the Medinan
chapter. Can verse A abrogate verse B, if verse A came before
Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari,
Salama Ibn Akwa', Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari, Subra Bin Ma'bad, Akwa'
Bin Abdullah Al-Aslami and Imran Bin Hasin have stated that the
ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated. Moreover, your eminent ulema
have also held that it was not abrogated. For instance, Jarullah
Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn Abbas's
statement that the verse of mut'a was one of the clear ordinances
of the Holy Qur'an, says that this verse was not repealed. Imam
Malik Bin Anas also said that the permissibility of mut'a had
not been repealed.
Mulla Sa'idu'd-din Taftazani in Sharh-e-Maqasid, Burhanu'd-din
Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fathu'l-Bari and
others also have reported the statement and verdict of Malik who
says: "Mut'a is lawful. It is permitted by religion. Its
lawfulness, as confirmed by Ibn Abbas, is quite well known and
most of his companions from Yeman and Mecca have practiced it.
At another place he says: "Mut'a is lawful since it has been
permitted and its lawfulness and permissibility hold good unless
it is repealed." You will notice that until Malik's death
there was no evidence that the ordinance of mut'a had been annulled.
Moreover, your prominent commentators, like Zamakhshari, Baghawi,
and Imam Tha'labi have adhered to the position of Ibn Abbas and
other distinguished companions and have believed in the lawfulness
Sheikh: Since there are no provisions
for a woman united by mut'a, such as inheritance, divorce, after
divorce (waiting period) and maintenance, as are necessary for
a wife, she cannot be a real wife.
Well-Wisher: A woman joined
with a man through mut'a is protected by all the provisions of
any wife except those which have been reasonably excluded. Mut'a
is a kind of nika (marriage), which entitles a woman to wifehood.
Of course for the convenience of the community and to save them
from lawlessness, some of its conditions and formalities have
been waived. As for its conditions, first, it is not proved that
inheritance is a necessary condition of marriage. Many women,
in spite of being wives, do not receive an inheritance from their
husbands. For example, disobedient wives or those who murder are
deprived of inheritance.
Second, it is not definitely established whether a woman united
by mut'a is deprived of her right of inheritance. The jurists
differ in their opinions about it, and such differences exist
among you also.
Third, the Imamiyya ulema unanimously hold the view that a woman
united by mut'a must also observe 'idda (waiting period before
re-marriage). Its shortest period has been fixed as 45 days. If
the husband dies, she should observe the usual 'idda of four months
and ten days, whether she had had sexual intercourse with her
husband or not, or whether she has passed the age of menstruation
Fourth, the right of maintenance is not a necessary condition
attached to marriage. There are a number of wives who are not
entitled to maintenance, such as those who are disobedient or
who murder their husbands.
Fifth, the expiration of the agreed upon period is itself her
divorce. Similarly, with the consent of her husband, she may be
divorced before the expiration date.
Therefore none of the conditions that you have mentioned has any
force. A renowned Shia scholar, Allama Jamalu'd-Din Hilli (Hasan
Bin Yusuf Bin Ali Bin Mutahhar), has given in detail the same
arguments in reply to the views of your prominent ulema. I have
referred to them briefly. Anyone who wants to study it in detail,
may consult Allama Hilli's Mabahithat-e-Sunniyya wa Ma'rifat-e-Nussairiyya.
Sheikh: Besides the holy verse
there are also a large number of hadith which say that the ordinance
concerning mut'a had been abrogated during the time of the Holy
Well-Wisher: Kindly let us know
about that order of abrogation.
Sheikh: It has been narrated
with some variations. Some reporters say that it was decreed on
the day of the conquest of Khaibar, some say it happened on the
day of conquest of Mecca, some reports say that it was on the
occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, and some say that it was on the
day of Tabuk. Others, however, are of the opinion that the order
of nullity was revealed on the occasion of Umratu'l-Qaza (The
Well-Wisher: The contradictory
reports clearly prove that there was no such order of abrogation.
And how can those reports be relied upon when, on the contrary,
there are many hadith reported in Sahih-e-Sitta, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain,
Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahih-e-Sitta, Musnad, etc, from distinguished
companions which prove that this verse was not abrogated until
the caliphate of Umar.
The most compelling argument that your own ulema have themselves
cited is the statement of Caliph Umar, who said: "I make
both those two mut'as which were current in the days of the Holy
Prophet, unlawful." Had there been any verse, or order of
the Holy Prophet, the caliph would have said: "According
to the instructions of the Holy Prophet, which is supported by
the Qur'anic verse, if any one committed the unlawful act in violation
of the abrogated ordinance, I will punish him." Such a statement
would have been more impressive for the people. But he merely
said: " Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy
Prophet, I make them unlawful."
If, however, your claim is correct and the verse of mut'a was
abrogated, why didn't the pupils of the Holy Prophet, like Abdullah
Ibn Abbas, Imran Bin Hashim and other companions act upon it.
Your own great traditionists and historians, including Bukhari
and Muslim, have recorded this fact. All these things clearly
prove that from the time of the Holy Prophet to the caliphate
of Umar the companions followed this ordinance.
So it is clear that mut'a shall continue to be lawful forever.
Abu Isa Muhammad Bin Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, which is
regarded as one of the six Sahih by you, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal
in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul
have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Khattab
what he considered about Mut'a-e-Nisa. He said: "Of course,
it is lawful." The man said again, "But your father,
the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It
was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited
by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy
Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."
For the reports which have been narrated, perhaps people later
forged hadith in order to support Caliph Umar's statement. The
matter is too clear to call for any further elucidation. The fact
is that you have no real evidence for the unlawfulness of mut'a
except the statement of Caliph Umar.
Sheikh: Caliph Umar's statement
in itself is the strongest evidence for Muslims, and they must
follow it. If he had not heard it from the Holy Prophet, he would
not have said that.
Well-Wisher: Is Caliph Umar's
statement so compelling that Muslims must follow it? I have not
seen a single hadith in your books, in which the Holy Prophet
said that Umar Bin Khattab's statement was a confirmed source
or that Muslims should follow it. On the other hand your books
are filled with reliable hadith saying that we should follow the
descendants of the Holy Prophet, particularly Ali. I have referred
to some of these hadith on previous nights. The Ahle Bait of the
Holy Prophet have said that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated.
You said that had Caliph Umar not heard about the order of cancellation
from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said what he did. But
this is easily disproved. First, if Caliph Umar had heard of the
cancellation of the order of mut'a from the Holy Prophet, he should
have spoken about it during the life of the Holy Prophet up to
the period of his own caliphate. This would have been especially
important since he saw prominent companions had been practicing
it, and it was his duty to tell the people that the practice of
mut'a had been annulled. Why did he not perform the duty of prevention
Second, the practice, which had been current among the community
by order of the Holy Prophet, could only be nullified by the Holy
Prophet. There should have been no delay in this case. Does it
stand to reason that if an order for the Community had been circulated
and was later abrogated, would the Holy Prophet have spoken about
it to no one except Umar? And would it have made sense that Umar
would not have told anybody about it until late in his own caliphate?
During all this period when the community continued to follow
this (so-called) abrogated order, did no responsibility lie with
You say that the prohibition of "nullified and irreligious
" practice could not be made known to others and therefore
the community continued to follow it. Can anybody else except
the Holy Prophet be held responsible for not proclaiming the abrogation
of an order, having told only Umar of it? Is it not infidelity
to say that the Holy Prophet neglected to perform his mission
and that the community because of its ignorance, continued acting
upon an abrogated order for a long time?
Third, if the order of mut'a had been annulled during the time
of the Holy Prophet and Umar had heard of this from the Holy Prophet,
Umar could have said when he prohibited it that he had himself
heard the Holy Prophet say that the practice of mut'a had been
banned. Obviously, if he had referred to the Holy Prophet's statement,
the community would have been much impressed by it. But he said,
"During the time of the Holy Prophet, two mut'as were permitted,
but I make them unlawful. Now I will stone those who do it."
Is it not the duty of the Holy Prophet to declare things lawful
or unlawful? Or, can it be the right of a caliph who has been
appointed by the people?
I don't understand on what basis Umar declared unlawful what Allah
made lawful. How strange it is that the Holy Prophet never said
that he made a certain thing lawful or unlawful. Whenever he announced
any order, he said that Allah had ordered him to convey it to
the people. How bold Umar is when he says: "Two mut'as were
permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet. I make both of them
unlawful. I will punish those who commit those acts."
Sheikh: Certainly you are aware
that some of our scholars of high learning believe that since
the Holy Prophet was a mujtahid (authority) in the matter of religious
orders, another mujtahid, by virtue of his own findings, may set
aside the former order. It was on this basis that Umar said, "I
make those two things unlawful."
Well-Wisher: In an attempt to
set right one wrong, you perpetrate many others. Does ijtihad
have any significance in contradicting an injunction of the Holy
Qur'an. Is not your statement quite absurd and opposed to the
Allah Almighty says in the sura of Jonah: "Say: It is not
proper for me that I should change it myself. I follow naught
but what is revealed to me." (10:15)
If it is true that the Holy Prophet could not make any changes
in religious order unless he was ordered by Allah to do so, how
could Umar, who had no knowledge of revelation, have the authority
to make unlawful what Allah had made lawful?
In the sura of Najm (The Star) Allah says: "Nor does he speak
out of caprice. It is naught but revelation that is revealed."
In the sura of Ahqaf (The Sand Dunes), Allah says: "Say:
I am not the first of the apostles, and I do not know what will
be done with me or with you. I do not follow anything but what
has been revealed to me." (46:9)
Obedience to the Holy Prophet is obligatory. No one, Umar or anyone
else, has the right to interfere with divine orders and make unlawful
what Allah made lawful.
Sheikh: Umar definitely thought
it expedient and considered it in the best interest of the people
to abrogate that order. We find these days that some people take
a woman in mut'a for the sake of pleasure for an hour, a month,
or a year. Later, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not,
they leave her.
Well-Wisher: This is ridiculous!
What does the lawfulness of this Islamic command have to do with
people's indulgence in illicit sexual relations? If we followed
your reasoning, perhaps permanent wedlock should be made unlawful.
After all, people marry noble girls for their money or their beauty
and later leave them, without giving them any financial support.
Since some people do this, do you think that permanent wedlock
should be abrogated?
No. We should encourage people to be honest and give them proper
religious instruction. If a righteous man does not find in himself
the capacity to shoulder the responsibility of having a permanent
wife, and if he wishes to avoid an unlawful action, he would,
in compliance with the code of religion, wish to take a woman
in mut'a or temporary wedlock. Accordingly, he would like to know
the conditions of mut'a because he knows that for every order
there are certain conditions. At the time of mutual agreement,
he would provide the amount of mehr (dower) for the woman which
would be sufficient for her maintenance during her 'idda, which
is 45 days, after the term of the period of mut'a.
Second, after the separation, he would look after the woman during
the entire period of 'idda. If she were pregnant, he would take
proper care of the mother so that he might take his child after
it is born. If some people fail to honor these conditions, it
does not follow that a valid order of lawfulness has been abrogated.
The welfare of the community was better understood by Allah and
the Holy Prophet than by Umar. And they did not prohibit mut'a.
If they didn't prohibit it, no caliph or imam, or any other man,
even one divinely commissioned, can of his own accord make unlawful
what Allah has made lawful. So your claim, that it was in the
best interest of the community that people give up mut'a, is untenable.
Mut'a was not the cause of the spread of lawlessness; rather it
was the banning of it which spread lewdness. Those young men and
women who cannot afford to join in permanent wedlock if they cannot
control and restrain their sexual appetite, will indulge in illicit
sex. And of course widespread adultery and fornication destroy
the moral character of entire nations.
Imam Tha'labi and Tabari in their Tafsir and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
in his Musnad, writing in connection with the verse of mut'a,
narrate from Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali that he said: "If Umar
had not put a restraint on mut'a, no one, except an unfortunate
man, would have committed fornication."
Also Ibn Jarih and Amr Bin Dinar report from Abdullah Ibn Abbas
who said: "Mut'a was really a mercy of Allah, which He gave
to the community of Muhammad. If Umar had not banned it, no one
except an unlucky man would have committed adultery."
So according to the views of the companions of the Holy Prophet,
the cause of the prevalence of adultery was the prohibition of
mut'a, rather than the practice of it. In fact all the divine
commands regarding lawful and unlawful acts which have been transmitted
to the community through the Holy Prophet were intended for the
welfare of the people. They continue to benefit them today.
Our topic of discussion was not this, but I wanted to remove your
doubt since you said that what was known in the time of the Holy
Prophet could be set at naught through forged hadith. Similarly
there is no validity in your objection regarding the faith of
Abu Talib. His faith during the time of the Holy Prophet was also
well known and regarded with respect. But by forging the hadith
of Zahza, some people spread just the opposite report. The uninformed
people, blindly following their elders accepted this false report.
In short, what I have said amply proves that Ali belonged to such
a distinguished family that no one of the eminent companions could
Another indication of Ali's special merit was his birthplace.
No one else, from Adam down through all the prophets, possessed
such a distinction. Of all human beings, he alone was born in
the sacred precinct of the Ka'ba. At the time of the birth of
the Prophet Jesus his illustrious mother was forced to leave the
Holy House. A voice said to her: "O Mary! Leave the Baitu'l-Muqaddas,
since it is the place of worship and not of childbirth."
But when the time of Ali's birth approached, his mother, Fatima
Bint Asad, was asked to enter the Ka'ba. And this was not an accidental
affair as if a woman was in the mosque and suddenly she was delivered
of a child. She was expressly called to enter the Ka'ba, the door
of which was locked. Some uninformed people think that Fatima
Bint Asad was in the Holy Mosque when she felt labor pains, could
not go out, and gave birth to the child. The fact was otherwise.
It was the month of Fatima Bint Asad's confinement. She went to
the Masjidu'l-Haram, where she felt labor pains. She prayed to
Allah in the precinct of the Ka'ba, saying: "O Allah! I pray
to you in the name of your honor and awe, to put me at my ease
in this labor." Suddenly, the wall of the Ka'ba, which was
Another report says that a voice was heard saying: "O Fatima!
Enter the House." Fatima went into the House of Allah in
front of a crowd of people who were sitting round that place and
the wall returned to its original condition. The people were greatly
astonished. Abbas was also there. When he saw what had happened,
he immediately told Abu Talib because he had the key to the door.
He instantly came there and tried his best to unlock the door,
but the door did not open. For three days Fatima Bint Asad remained
inside the Ka'ba, apparently without sustenance of any kind. This
unusual event was the talk of the town. At last, on the third
day, the passage through which she had entered again opened, and
Fatima came out. The people saw that she had in her hands a lovely
child. Both sects (Shias and Sunnis) agree that no one else had
ever been given such distinction.
Hakim in his Mustadrak and Nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh Maliki in his
Fusulu'l- Muhimma, Fasl I, p.14, say: "No one before Ali
was born in the Ka'ba. This was a distinction given to Ali in
order to enhance his honor, rank, and dignity."
Another indication of Ali's special merit was that his name had
its origin in the unseen world.
Sheikh: You have said a novel
thing. This means that Abu Talib was a prophet who named Ali through
divine inspiration. Your statement is one of those lies which
the Shias have invented in their extreme love (ghulu') for Ali.
But it is farcical to say that Allah ordered that the child should
be named Ali. Ali was an ordinary name which the parents, of their
own will, proposed. It had nothing to do with the unseen world.
Well-Wisher: What I said had
nothing novel in it. Your astonishment is due to your lack of
knowledge about the merits of wilaya (vicegerency).
First, you think that the child was given the name after his birth,
though it was not so. In all the heavenly books, the names of
Muhammad and Ali have been mentioned. Allah Almighty gave names
to them thousands of years prior to their creation. The names
were written on the skies, on the gates of heaven and on the arsh
(the highest heavens). It had nothing to do with Abu Talib's time.
Sheikh: Surely this statement
is an example of excessive love for Ali. You have raised him so
high that you claim his name was written long before the creation
of the universe. The result of such statements is that your jurists
consider pronouncing the name of Ali after the name of the Holy
Prophet in the call to prayer.
Well-Wisher: No, sir. My statement
has nothing to do with excessive love. And it is not I who have
written his name in the heavens. Allah ordered Ali's name to be
written along with His own name and the name of His Prophet.
Sheikh: Kindly refer to any
of those hadith.
Well-Wisher: Muhammad Bin Jarir
Tabari in his Tafsir, Ibn Asakir in his Ta'rikh, Muhammad Bin
Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i, in his Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.62, Hafiz Abu
Nu'aim, in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi
in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, p.238, ch. 56, hadith 52, narrate from Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba
of Imamu'l-Haram Ahmad Bin Abdullah Tabari Shafi'i on the authority
of Abu Huraira (with a slight variation in wording) that the Holy
Prophet said: "It is written on the arsh that 'There is no
god but Allah, the One Who has no associate; and Muhammad is my
servant and Prophet, whom I helped through Ali Bin Abi Talib.'"
Also in Jalalu'd-din Suyuti's Khasa'isu'l-Kubra, vol.I, p.10 and
Tafsir-e-Durr-e-Mansur, beginning of the chapter of Isra'il, it
is reported from Ibn Adi and Ibn Asakir, who narrate from Ana's
Ibn Malik, that the Holy Prophet of Allah said that he had seen
written on the arsh, "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad
is the Prophet of Allah; I have given him support through Ali."
In Yanabiu'l-Mawadda it is narrated from Dhakha'iru'l-Uqba of
Imamu'l-Haram Tabari, according to the report of Sirat-e-Mullah,
that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "On the night of the
Mi'raj, when I was taken to the highest heaven, I saw written
there on the right side of the arsh: 'Muhammad is the Prophet
of Allah. I have given him help and support through Ali.'"
It is reported in Yanabi, Hadith 19, from Kitabu's-Sabi'in of
Imamu'l-Haram Tabari, quoting from the Manaqib of Faqih Wasti
Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i, and also Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani Shafi'i
writes in his Mawadda VI from Mawaddatu'l-Qurba two hadith; Khatib
Khawarizmi in Manaqib, Ibn Shirwaih in Firdaus, and Ibn Maghazili
Shafi'i in Manaqib narrating from Jabir Bin Abdullah Ansari that
the Holy Prophet said: "It is written on the gate of Paradise
that 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah,
and Ali is the Wali (vicegerent) of Allah and brother of the Holy
Prophet of Allah.' This was written 2,000 years before the creation
of the skies and the world."
I recall another hadith. Mir Seyyed Ali Faqih Shafi'i writes in
Mawadda VIII of Mawaddatu'l-Qurba that the Holy Prophet said to
Ali: "I have seen your name coupled with mine in four places:
(1) On the night of the Mi'raj (ascension) when I reached the
Baitu'l-Muqaddas (The Dome of the Rock), I saw written on the
rock: 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet
of Allah whom I gave support through his vizier (deputy) Ali.'"
(2) When I reached Sidratu'l-Muntaha (the loftiest place), I saw
the words: 'Verily I am Allah; There is no god but Me, the One,
and Muhammad among all my creation is My loved one. I gave him
support through his vizier, Ali.'
(3) When I reached the arsh' (the highest heaven) of Almighty
Allah, I saw there written on its pillars: 'Verily, I am Allah,
and there is no god except Me.: Of all my creation Muhammad is
my loved one. I have supported him through his vizier, Ali.'
(4) When I reached Paradise, I saw written on its gate: 'There
is no god but Me. Of all my creation Muhammad is my loved one.
I gave him help and support through his vizier, Ali.'"
Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir Kashfu'l-Bayan and Sheikh Sulayman
Balkhi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, chapter 24, reporting from Hafiz
Abu Nu'aim Ispahani, Muhammad Bin Jarir in his Tafsir and Ibn
Asakir in his Ta'rikh, narrate from Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira
that verse 64 of the sura of Anfal (The Accessions) of the Holy
Qur'an, namely: "He it is Who strengthened you with His help
and with the believers." (8:62)
Then they say that the Holy Prophet said: "I saw written
on the arsh' that There is no god but Allah, the One, Who has
no partner, and Muhammad is My servant and Prophet; I strengthened
him with Ali Bin Abi Talib."
Then they narrate other hadith of this kind from Kitab-e-Sifa
and Manaqib. The source of the names of Muhammad and Ali is Allah
Also Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir Kashfu'l-Bayan and Sheikh Sulayman
Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabi, chapter 24, reporting from Faqih Wasti
Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i are a commentary on verse 37 of sura 2 of
the Holy Qur'an, namely: "Then Adam received (some) words
from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is oft-returning
(to mercy), the Merciful." (2:37)
Sa'id Ibn Jabir reported from Ibn Abbas, who said: "The Holy
Prophet was asked about the words which the Prophet Adam had learned
and which led to the acceptance of his repentance. The Prophet
said: 'He invoked Allah in the names of Muhammad, Ali, Fatima,
Hasan and Husain. So Allah accepted his repentance and forgave
In regard to the granting of wahi and prophethood to Abu Talib,
you are again mistaken. Wahi and Ilham have stages which are not
peculiar to the rank of prophethood alone. These terms refer to
a being's ability to understand hidden knowledge directly. This
knowledge is granted to special people as well as to animals.
Was the bee a prophet to whom Allah sent wahi? A verse of the
Holy Qur'an in sura Nahl (The Ants) clearly says: "And your
Lord revealed to the bee, saying: Make hives in the mountains
and in the trees and in what they build." (16:68)
Do you think that Nukhabuz (or, according to some commentators,
Yukhabuz), the mother of the Prophet Moses was a prophet? In the
sura of Qasas (The Narratives) is clearly stated that she had
been given two commands, two prohibitory edicts, two pieces of
information and two good tidings through wahi, Allah says: "And
we revealed to Moses' mother, saying: Give him suck; then when
you fear for him, cast him into the river and do not fear nor
grieve; surely We will bring him; back to you and make him one
of the apostles." (28:7)
Apart from these facts, it is not necessary for the guidance of
the people that all instructions and commands of Allah should
be communicated through wahi. Sometimes He guides the people through
a voice. It has repeatedly happened and the Holy Qur'an bears
testimony to this fact. In sura Maryam (Mary), He says how He
guided Mary: "Then (a voice) called out to her from beneath
her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath
you. Shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop
for you fresh, ripe dates. So eat and drink and refresh the eye.
Then if you see any mortal, say: 'Surely I have vowed a fast to
the Beneficent God, so I shall not speak to any man today.'"