[Subject] [Date] [Moderator] Home

['Aalim Network QR] The First Three Khulafah and La'nah

|                          w           w     w                          |\
|                           ||          ||   | ||                       |\
|                    o_,_7 _||  . _o_7 _|| 4_|_||  o_w_,                |\
|                   ( :   /    (_)    /           (   .                 |\
|                                                                       |\
|           ||  ||         |  ||   |T              |     | ||    |      |\
|   . _, _8 |_D_|| . _,_,_,_D_|| 4_|| q ]_o_7_o   _|_c 4_|_||   _|,_p q |\
|  (_): /         (_): . :            /        (_S           (_S      / |\
|                                                                       |\
|       In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful       |\
|  Greeting of Allah be upon Muhammad and the pure members of his House |\

Salamun alaykum,

	The reply to the following questions were kindly provided by 
Mulla Bashir Rahim.


Mustafa Rawji
Moderator, 'Aalim Network



I am grateful to the member who submitted the following questions for
giving me an opportunity to clarify my earlier posting and also express my
views on the issue of la'nah. I have, for the sake of clarity, given below
the questions posed (including excerpts from my posting the questioner has
referred to) and my response to each question. 


"With due respect, and with a view to seek certain clarifications, I put
forth a couple of questions and wish elaborations on the following:


"Let us examine the position of the first three khulafah. No one, and I
repeat no one, has the right to treat any of them as non-Muslims. (I may
add that the position of Yezid is different, but that is not within the
scope of this discussion. " 


What is the position of Yezid? Who is worse the three khulafah or Yezid?


The position of Yezid is definitely different. When the severed head of
Imam Hussain (A.S) was brought to him in Damascus, and the prisoners were
made to stand in front of him, Yezid began to recite a poem in which he
said, "I wish that my venerable ancestors had witnessed how the supporters
of Muhammad's faith were thrown into confusion with the thrusts of my
spears. They would have greeted me with blessings and might have said 'May
Yezid never get palsied !' The Banu Hashim played a trick to win power. In
truth there never was never any wahyi revealed." 

The above statement of Yezid is clearly a declaration of apostasy.


"Even those who thought they were very close to the Holy Prophet were
often assailed by doubts, at Hudaibiyya, at Ghadir-e-Khum, when the Holy
Prophet lay ill and after his death. History has chronicled these events
and demonstrated that their station can at best only be in between the two


What kind of doubts did they assail? Doubt of the Prophethood or doubt of
Wilayat? And what was their final conviction? Could you cite some people
who harboured such doubts? 


Ibne Ishaq (English translation by Gulllaum, p. 504), Haykal in his Life
of Muhammad (pp 352-3) as well as Tabari and many other Sunni authors have
vividly described the events at Hudaibiyya. When the Holy Prophet had
negotiated the peace treaty with the Kuffars of Mecca Umar was so enraged
that he went to Abu Bakr and asked (in the words of Haykal) "O Abu Bakr,
is not Muhammad the Prophet of God are we not Muslims ?" Abu Bakr answered
in the affirmative. Umar then said "Why then should we give in to the
disbelievers in a matter vital to our faith ?" Ibne Ishaq describes the
incident in almost identical terms ending that much later Umar was heard
to say that he never ceased to seek Allah's forgiveness by fasting and
giving alms for the doubt that he had entertained. 

A doubt about the prophethood of the Holy Prophet is indistinguishable
from any doubt of any command, declaration or decision of the Holy
Prophet. Allah says in Suratun-Najm verses 3 & 4 "Nor does he (the Holy
Prophet) speak of his own desire. Whatever he speaks is a revelation made
to him (wahyun yooha)" 

Again in Suratul Ahzab, Ayah 36: "And it is not right for any believing
man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an
affair for them, that they should claim any say in that affair. Whoso is
rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he is indeed in astray in a
manifest error." In An-Nisa, verse 115, Allah says "And whoso opposes the
messenger after the guidance of Allah has been manifested to him, and
follows other than a believer's way, We appoint for that to which he
himself has turned (exercised an option for), and expose him unto Hell, a
hapless journey's end." In Suratul Hashr, ayah 7, "What the Prophet gives
you accept it, what he withholds keep away from." 

I trust the above Qur'anic references will prove enlightening.


"Can I , as a good Shiah that I profess to be, really claim to be a Shiah
?  Do I faithfully follow the footprints of those aimmah whom I profess to
love ?  Have I totally submitted my will, my desires and my actions to
what they prescribed ?" 


The relation between these questions and the CONCEPT OF CURSING?


On the question of cursing Mulla Asghar, who is far more learned than I,
had, in an answer to a question posed to him, this to say:

"One of the Furu-e-Deen is "Tabarra" which is Wajib. It means to
disassociate oneself or remain aloof from, amongst others, the enemies of
Ahlul Bayt (A).  It is our belief that the rights of Imam Ali (A) were
violated by the first three Caliphs (as he himself has testified in Nahjul
Balagha). It is therefore necessary that we disassociate ourselves from
them, but it is not Wajib to curse or abuse them." 

(Ref:  'Aalim Network Archives - June 27, 1996)

Ziyarat-e-Ashura does contain la'nah on those who deprived the Ahlul Bayt
of their rights, persecuted them, oppressed them and murdered them. The
Ziyarah comes to us from Imam Muhammad Baqir (A.S.). The chain of
narrators is impeccable and the Ziyarah does not at all contradict the
Holy Qur'an. In Suratul Ahzab Allah says in Ayah 57: "Indeed those who
malign (cause hurt) to, or as Shakir translates the word 'yu'adhoona'
speaks evil of Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in this
world and in the Hereafter and has prepared for them the doom of the

La'nah on such people is permissible. In Ziyarat-e-'Ashura it takes the
form of repeated utterance.

We must ask ourselves: Why is it so much stressed that we utter la'nah in
this ziyarah? Surely it can not be because we must vent our anger against
those who were responsible for these despicable acts. The culprits are no
longer there.

La'nah is a protest against their evil deeds as much as against them. It
is a protest against the evil spirit which they let loose and which not
only lives on but is espoused by many to this day. 

La'nah is a form of commitment. A commitment, firstly, that we shall never
ever allow ourselves to be engulfed by that evil spirit and, while
professing eternal love for the Holy Prophet and his holy descendants,
indulge in any act or omission which may make us appear to be following
the foot-prints of the very people we call la'nah upon. This could, God
forbid, make us the target of our own la'nah' as when we knowingly disobey
Allah and his Prophet in any precept of Islam e.g. failure to perform any
wajibat or indulgence in any intoxicant or geebah or causing dissension
within the community or being guilty of misappropriating any one's right
etc. It is the right of the Holy Prophet to be obeyed and we can not
violate that right and at the same time invoke la'nah on those who
committed similar offences.

The cause of Imam Hussain (A.S.) was to re-establish these rights of Allah
and the Holy Prophet. We can not sacrifice the cause of the Martyr on the
altar of the ritual of his remembrance.

Secondly it is a commitment that we shall by deed and kind words alter the
thinking of those Muslims who do not belong to our school of thought. For
this latter commitment to be effectively fulfilled it is necessary that
the utterance of la'nah be an utterance confined to our gatherings so that
we may avoid creating an atmosphere which would arouse distrust of any
rational argument we may put forward. 


"Let me remind you of the saying of Imam Hussain (A.S.):"Our shiah is the
one whose heart is pure of malice, deception and corruption. His words and
deeds are only for the pleasure of Allah." 


Is bearing malice against the Caliphs permitted or not?


Malice does not appear to be an appropriate term here. We have to, as
Mulla Asghar says, disassociate ourselves from the deeds of those who were
oppressors and tyrants. 


I thank the questioner for raising so many questions from my previous
posting. I trust I have clarified the situation. If there are any
supplementary questions, please submit them to the Alim Network. 

With salaams and du'aas from a humble servant of Ahlul Bayt and their
followers, and with a request to be remembered by you in your prayers,

Bashir Rahim

Back: ['Aalim Network QR] The Door of Knowledge
Forward: ['Aalim Network QR] The Infallibles