Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PESHAWAR NIGHTS
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
INTRODUCTION
The art of fictional narration
The art of fictional narration can be traced back to the earliest civilizations, and has
assumed various different appearances over the centuries. The fact that this form of
narration is fictitious was never really used to discredit literary fiction, since the lessons
the author of Aesop’s Fables, for example, wished to impart, did not depend upon
whether his animal characters could or did really speak. Similarly, Shakespeare, in his
quasi-historical works, does not attempt to convey to the reader the notion that the words
or actions he ascribes to his characters were really said or done by them.
However, it is when the author of the fictional narrative tries to overstep the bounds of
fiction and confer upon his work the appearance of historical authenticity, that his work
loses the respectable designation “literary fiction”, and earns for itself the ignominious
epithet “literary hoax”.
The Historicity of “Peshawar Nights”
In the book “Peshawar Nights”, whose author is styled as “Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi”, we
have an example of a work which purports to be the record of a Sunni-Shi‘i debate.
However, an objective analysis of the book leads us to the inevitable conclusion that in
this particular work Shirazi has done nothing more than employ the literary device of
fictional narration—a device that for centuries has found favour with Shi‘i polemicists.
Shi‘i polemicists were quite aware that to actually engage the ‘ulama of the Ahl as-
Sunnah in debate would considerably curtail their advantage, and therefore they resorted
to the more convenient ploy of creating their own opponents, since by doing so they
would be able to manipulate the “opponent’s” arguments to their own advantage. Thus,
when Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi decided to choose this style of writing for his book, he
was not being original at all. He was merely imitating the precedent set by earlier Shi‘i
writers like Abul Futuh ar-Razi and Radiyy ad-Din Ibn Tawus. Below we look at three
works in this genre by these two authors.
Husniyyah
A book by this title appeared during the latter half of the previous century, purporting to
be the record of a debate that had taken place at the court of Harun ar-Rashid between
Husniyyah, a slave girl owned by a merchant friend of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq, and the
Imams Abu Yusuf and ash-Shafi‘i. This slave girl had supposedly stayed with Imam
Ja‘far upto the age of twenty, and had acquired expertise in numerous branches of
knowledge from him. In the book she publicly humiliates the two Imams, defeating their
arguments and presenting them with “incontrovertible evidence” of the truth of the creed
of the Shi‘ah.
The book is full of anachronisms. For one, ash-Shafi‘i came to Baghdad only after the
death of Abu Yusuf, so it is impossible that they could ever have taken part together in
any discussion. The book also speaks of a third learned man by the name of Ibrahim
Khalid of Basrah, who was supposedly regarded by Abu Yusuf as “superior in knowledge
to them all.” When they themselves were unable to answer the arguments of Husniyyah,
they referred the matter to this Ibrahim Khalid, but he too, was incapable of responding to
her. History, however, has recorded nothing of a person by this name, and the effort to
identify him with Abu Thawr, whose name was Ibrahim ibn Khalid, is futile, since Abu
Thawr was a Baghdadi by birth and lived there all his life. Far from being regarded as
ash-Shafi‘i’s superior, he was his student, and one of the four narrators of his qadim
views. Even of Husniyyah herself, the annals of history and biography have recorded
nothing at all. It is only in this belated document that mention is made of her existence.
It is recorded by the prominent Shi‘i bibliographer, Aqa Buzurg Tihrani in his
bibliographical lexicon adh-Dhari‘ah that this booklet was originally found in the
possession of a sayyid in Syria by Mulla Ibrahim al-Astarabadi when the latter returned
to Iran from Hajj in the year 958/1551. He translated it into Persian, and it was first
published in 1287/1870. (adh-Dhari‘ah, vol. 4 p. 97 no. 452, 3rd edition, Dar al-Adwa’,
Beirut 1401/1981)
The Shi‘i biographer Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi al-Isfahani has done us a favour by
exposing the real author of the book Husniyyah, and his purpose in writing such a book.
He writes in his book Riyad al-‘Ulama’:
Such a degree of learning and eminence is accorded to Husniyyah in this
booklet, that it creates the impression of it being the fraudulent work of
Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi, written and forged by him. He ascribed it to
Husniyyah in order to bring disgrace to the beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunnah,
and to humiliate them by exposing their beliefs. (Riyad al-‘Ulama’ vol. 5 p.
407 (Maktabat Ayatullah al-Mar‘ashi, Qum 1401/1981)
This identification of Abul Futuh ar-Razi with the authorship of the booklet Husniyyah is
supported by Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin, the author of A‘yan ash-Shi‘ah, one of the most
authoritative contemporary biographical dictionaries of the Shi‘ah. He states categorically
that this book “is the work of Abul Futuh ar-Razi”.
Yuhanna the Christian
This same Shaykh Abul Futuh ar-Razi is credited with the authorship of another spurious
polemical tract called Risalat Yuhanna an-Nasrani (the tract of Yuhanna [John] the
Christian). In this tract, quoted by a number of Shi‘i writers as factual truth, a Christian
by the name of Yuhanna engages the Sunni ‘ulama of Baghdad in a debate during which
he demonstrates the “fallacies” in the creed of the Ahl as-Sunnah. Eventually he declares
his acceptance of Shi‘ism as the true religion. Mirza ‘Abdullah Effendi ascribes this work
to Abul Futuh ar-Razi. The “strength” of this polemic is supposed to derive from the fact
that even a non-Muslim is able to discern the “falsehood” of Sunni belief from the “truth”
of Shi‘ism.
‘Abd al-Mahmud the Dhimmi
Radiyy ad-Din Ali ibn Tawus belonged to a prominent Shi‘i family that lived at Hillah
near Najaf at the time of the sack of Baghdad by the Tartars under Hulagu. Shi‘ite
complicity in the fall of Baghdad is a fact of history. This explains why the Mongol
conquerors favoured the Shi‘i intellectuals. Ibn Tawus, for example, was appointed Naqib
al-Ahsraf by Hulagu, the destroyer of Baghdad. He gladly accepted this office, having
earlier persistently refused it from the late Khalifah, al-Mustansir.
With the fall of Baghdad came a new surge in Shi‘ite propagation, the like of which was
only seen in the days of the Buwayhids during the 5th century. The high positions
occupied by Shi‘i dignitaries in the Ilkhanid (Mongol) administration afforded the Shi‘ah
the influence and leverage they needed to prosper. In Iraq the town of Hillah soon
developed into the most important center of Shi‘i learning.
This age also saw the composition of a number of polemical works. As the most prolific
Shi‘i author of the time, it would be only natural for Ibn Tawus to contribute to this genre
of literature. However, he preferred to do so under an assumed identity. His book, entitled
at-Tara’if fi Madhahib at-Tawa’if, was written under the nom-de-plume ‘ Abd al-
Mahmud ibn Dawud al-Mudari.
He commences his book with the (patently false) statement that he is a man from
amongst the Ahl adh-Dhimmah (Jews or Christians living under the protection of the
Muslim state). He then proceeds on to a comparative study of different religious
persuasions, and predictably enough, ends up with Ithna ‘Ashari (Twelver) Shi‘ism as the
only true religion. Like Abul Futuh ar-Razi before him, he seeks to inject objectivity into
his work by assuming the identity of a supposedly unbiased observer. (See Riyad
al-‘Ulama’ vol. 5 p. 407)
____________________
This survey of the use of fictional narration by Shi‘i polemicists in history creates the
background against which we will now proceed to examine the historicity of “Peshawar
Nights” and its contents.
Authorship
The first thing which draws the attention of the unbiased reader should be the fact that
while there were two sides who participated in the discussion, the book itself came from
the peof the Shi‘i participant exclusively. This fact might at first glance escape the notice
of the unsuspicious reader who has complete faith—to the point of gullibility—in the
goodwill of the author. However, no one possessed of a sense of discretion can help but
notice this discrepancy.
The writer of the foreword seeks to make amends for this serious indictment of the
book’s historicity by stating that “four reporters recorded the discussions in the presence
of approximately 200 people (Shia and Sunni Muslims),” and that “local newspapers
published these accounts each following morning.” Yet, both Shirazi and his publishers
fail to produce the least bit of factual evidence in the form of copies of the newspaper
reports from which it is alleged that Shirazi ultimately compiled the book. All we have to
vouch for the occurrence of this ten-night discussion is the word of Shirazi himself.
There is furthermore no external corroboration at all, least of all by the Sunni participant
or the five other dignitaries who are alleged in the translator’s preface (p. xviii) to have
publicly acknowledged their conversion to Shi‘ism. Once again, we have nothing but
Shirazi’s own claim to support the historicity of the event upon which “Peshawar Nights”
is based.
Publication
The book is published not in Peshawar, the city in which the discussion reportedly took
place, but in Tehran. It is published not in Urdu or Pushtu, the language of the North
West Frontier, but in Persian, the language of Iran.
It is highly unlikely that there was a Persian language newspaper in Peshawar, or in the
rest of India for that matter, at the time of the alleged debate. In India at that time, Persian
had diminished into an archaic language, more suited for the occasional moments of
inspiration of the romantic poet than for the practical use of the media. Shirazi himself
was merely a visitor to India, and is therefore not likely to have known either Urdu or
Pushtu. The question about how he came to transcribe his book from newspaper accounts
published in a language he did not know will remain a mystery for as long as one
believes that the book is the record of an historical debate. On the other hand, if one
accepts the much more plausible, rational, and indeed logical position that the author of
the book has employed the literary device of fictional narration, for whatever reason, the
mystery is immediately and conclusively solved.
The participants
The names of the participants are given as Hafiz Muhammad Rashid and Shaykh ‘Abd
as-Salam, and they are said to be from Kabul. None of these two persons are identified
beyond their first names. Eponymous descriptions that identify persons in terms of their
localities or family connections, and which are so common amongst the ‘ulama of India
and Afghanistan, are conspicuously absent. The same is true for the third person, Sayyid
‘Abd al-Hayy. Even the Nawab Sahib, whose conversion at the end of the 10th session is
prominently touted, is not clearly identified. Why, if the incident and the personalities
were as real as the author tries to make them seem, does he prefer to keep it secret?
Furthermore, Sunni-Shi‘i polemics was at that time a very well developed discipline.
Shi‘i proselytization in the established Sunni community had led to some Sunni ‘ulama
taking up the task of debating and refuting the Shi‘ah. Beginning with Shah Waliyyullah
and his son Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, there were literally scores of Sunni ‘ulama who
specialized in Sunni-Shi‘i polemics. At the time this debate was supposedly taking place
in the remote city of Peshawar, there lived in India an intellectual giant like ‘Allamah
‘Abd ash-Shakur of Lucknow, a scholar whose devotion to Sunni-Shi‘i polemics had
earned him the title “Imam Ahl as-Sunnah”. In 1345 when this debate allegedly occurred
‘Allamah ‘Abd ash-Shakur was in his prime at the age of 52.(See Nuzhat al-Khawatir,
vol. 8 p. 271) The erudite Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri was at that time 53 years of
age. (See Nuzhat al-Khawatir, vol. 8 p. 90) If Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi was at all serious
about an objective discussion of Sunni-Shi‘i differences, he would have been engaging
scholars of this caliber, and not figures of obscure historicity, who probably never existed
outside his own imagination.
Sources
Shirazi’s citation of sources cannot fail to attract the reader’s attention. The translators
ascribe this to his erudition: “Although the dialogue was extemporaneous, such was the
erudition of Sultanu’l-Wa`izin Shirazi ... that the transcript serves as a detailed
bibliographical reference to hundreds of Sunni treatises well known and little known, in
which the claims of the Shi`ites are acknowledged.” (p. xviii) However, to the careful—
and knowledgeable—reader, this very same manner of citation reveals a fatal fault in the
authenticity of the book as a faithful record of a debate in 1345/1927.
There are many occurrences of this phenomenon throughout the book, but a few random
examples should suffice to clarify its nature to the reader.
One of the sources quoted by Shirazi, complete with volume and page numbers, is the
book at-Tarikh al-Kabir by Imam Bukhari. (See p. 229) This work would be
printed in Hyderabad, Deccan for the first time ever in the year 1362/1943, no less
than 16 years after the “debate” took place.
Another work cited by Shirazi is Hilyat al-Awliya by Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani. (See p.
139) The first edition of this work was published in Cairo, from 1351/1932 to
1357/1938. The printing of this first edition commenced 6 years after the date of
the alleged debate in Peshawar, and was completed 12 years after that date.
The book Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti is quoted with page number by Shirazi. (See p.
147) Yet the first ever edition of this book would appear in print in 1371/1952, 26
years after the event.
The Tarikh of Ya‘qubi would be published for the first time by Dar Sadir in Beirut
only in 1960. Shirazi quotes from it, complete with page reference, 33 years
before its first edition would see the light. (See p. 147)
The fifth volume of Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf would be published by the
University Press in Jerusalem in 1936. Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi cites from this
very same volume, to the point of supplying the page number, 9 years earlier.
(See p. 146)
Muruj adh-Dhahab by Mas‘udi was first published by Dar Sadir in Beirut in
1368/1948, 3 years before Shirazi could quote it with volume and page numbers.
(See p. 146)
al-‘Iqd al-Farid by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih is quoted with page and volume numbers by
Shirazi. (See p. 190) Yet it was printed for the first time in Cairo in 1952, a
quarter century after the alleged debate in Peshawar.
al-Haythami’s book Majma‘ az-Zawa’id is confidently cited by Shirazi, with page
and volume numbers. (See p. 82) Yet the book would be printed for the first time
in 1352, 7 years later.
‘Umdat al-Qari by Badr ad-Din al‘Ayni was first published in 1348. Shirazi manages
to cite this work by page and volume numbers 3 years before its publication. (See
p. 239)
The book Tarikh Baghdad was first published by Maktabat al-Khanji in Cairo in
1349/1930. Again Sultan al-Wa‘izin Shirazi manages the impossible by citing
from this work with page and volume numbers 4 years before its publication. (See
p. 183)
Thus Shirazi’s habit of supplying copious lists of references, and thereupon attempting to
inject authority into them by citing page and volume numbers, had an unexpected—and a
most definitely undesired—side effect. Instead of bolstering the authority of his book, it
destroyed the entire image of the book as the authentic record of an objective debate.
Aside from the above cases where Shirazi has made reference to sources which were to
be printed several years after the date of his alleged debate in Peshawar, he also has the
tendency to list a large number of references which he could never possibly have laid
hands or eyes on. Most of his references lack volume and page numbers. This shows that
he did not have access to these works, and was merely quoting them from secondary,
unnamed sources. A substantial number of them refer to books that have been completely
missing for ce, and of which nothing is known besides their titles.
_______________
Source methodology
One point of criticism which will recur throughout the book is the author’s indiscriminate
use of sources. In matters of Shari‘ah and history, source methodology accounts for four
fifths of any textual argument. No quotation can be presented as an authoritative
argument if its authenticity has not satisfactorily been accounted for.
The key word here is authenticity. No hadith is authentic simply for the reason of it being
documented in a book. Of all people, the Shi‘ah are supposed to be the first to take note
of this fact. Whenever they are confronted with the fact that their hadith literature
contains a huge number of ahadith (2000, according to Ni‘matullah al-Jaza’iri in al-
Anwar an-Nu‘maniyyah) indicating that the present Qur’an suffered interpolation at the
hands of the Sahabah. To know just how much importance the Shi‘ah attach to
authenticity, one needs only to look at the vehemence and fervour with which Ayatullah
Muhammad Husayn Burujirdi—the supreme Shi‘i mujtahid upto his death in 1961—
rejected the Shi‘i ahadith proving interpolation in the Qur’an as being “extremely weak”.
(Lutfullah as-Safi, Ma‘ al-Kahtib fi Khututihi al-‘Aridah, p. 53)
Is authenticity a principle that only the Shi‘ah can invoke when things turn against them?
No person possessed of a sense fairness can fail to see the double standards of him who
complains when unauthentic quotations from his own legacy are used against him, but
freely quotes from the literature of his opponents without bothering to secure the
authenticity of what he quotes.
In the following pages I will survey the sources of Sunni hadith cited by Shirazi. The
sources from which he cites Sunni hadith may be classified under three headings: (1)
primary sources (2) secondary sources (3) obscure sources.
1. Primary sources
Hadith books in this category are characterized by the fact that they utilize isnads (chains
of narration) for their material. It includes books such as the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn
Hanbal, the six major works of al-Buhkari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa’i
and Ibn Majah, the works of al-Bayhaqi, ad-Daraqutni, and of authors as late as Abu
Nu‘aym al-Isfahani and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi.
The narrated material in any collection utilizing isnads is as a rule only as good as the
isnad. In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim we have a unique case, in that these two
authors have applied a rigorous set of criteria to the ahadith which they admitted into
their collections. The ahadith in the Sahihayn are therefore all authentic, not simply for
the fact that they appear in those books, but because they conform to the criteria of
authenticity stipulated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine to what
extent they conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim, neither
by the authors of these works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate
exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak,
and Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim wal-Anwa‘ (commonly known as Sahih Ibn
Hibban), have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari and Muslim by
documenting only authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which they
abided by those criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure
from later muhaddithin.
Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person suffers
from one of two defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian attitude of
the end—in this case the conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnah—justifying the means. Either
of these defects is sufficient to disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist.
1. Secondary sources
Books in this category do not use isnads. Instead, they reproduce the texts of hadith from
the primary sources, and give a reference to the source from they have taken it. An
example here would be the book Majma‘ az-Zawa’id by Abul Hasan al-Haythami. In this
work the author has collected those ahadith in the Musnads of Ahmad, al-Bazzar and Abu
Ya‘la, and the three Mu‘jams of at-Tabarani—al-Kabir, al-Awsat and as-Saghir—that do
not appear in the six major collections.
Since the hadith collections in this category basically draw from the previous category,
the same is applicable to it in terms of authenticity as was stated for the primary sources.
In fact, when quoting from such secondary sources, the onus to prove authenticity is even
greater.
Shirazi seems quite oblivious to—or ignorant of—the fact that works such as Majma‘ az-
Zawa’id merely reproduce ahadith from primary sources. Therefore he thinks nothing of
adducing Majma‘ az-Zawa’id as a source after having already ascribed the hadith to al-
Mu‘jam al-Awsat of at-Tabarani. (See p. 82) This is but one example of many. One
wonders how someone who displays such an astonishing lack of proficiency in hadith
could be bold enough to present himself as an erudite scholar.
Other books in this category are ad-Durr al-Manthur and Tarikh al-Khulafa, both by as-
Suyuti, Ihya’ ‘Ulum ad-Din by al-Ghazali, Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (also known as at-
Tafsir al-Kabir) by Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi, Jami‘ al-Usul by Ibn al-Athir, and Kanz
al-‘Ummal by ‘Ali al-Muttaqi. This list is by no means exhausitive. These titles are
mentioned merely by way of example.
1. Obscure sources
Shirazi has shown an idiosyncratic predilection to quote from obscure and doubtful
sources. A number of his sources stand out prominently in this regard: Yanabi‘ al-
Mawaddah by Sulayman al-Qanduzi al-Hanafi; Kifayat at-Talib by Muhammad ibn
Yusuf al-Kanji ash-Shafi‘i; and Fara’id as-Simtayn by al-Hamawayni.
The first of the three, al-Qanduzi, is described in Mu‘jam al-Mu’allifin (vol. 4 p. 252) as a
Sufi who lived during the latter half of the 13th/19th century. Al-Kanji, although very
prominently labelled by Shirazi as a Shafi‘i, is completely unknown to biographers of the
Shafi‘i fuqaha such as Imam an-Nawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wal-Lughat, Ibn as-Subki
in Tabaqat ash-Shafi‘iyyah al-Kubra, Ibn Qadi Shuhbah in his Tabaqat ash-Shafi‘iyyah,
and Jamal ad-Din al-Isnawi in his Tabaqat. Having died in 658 (as stated by Zerekly in
al-A‘lam vol. 7 p. 150) he lived at least a century before an-Nawawi (who died in 767)
and two centuries before the remaining biographers. It is therefore of great significance
that that not one of these biographers make any mention of him. Of al-Hamawayni I have
not been able to locate a single trace in any of the biographical dictionaries.
When authors such as these compile works in which they include ahadith the like of
which was never heard of before them, what status shall be accorded to such ahadith?
Shall they be regarded as “authentic ahadith” from “your own reliable Sunni scholars”? I
leave this question to the great Imam Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi to answer. In his book al-
Mahsul fi ‘Ilm al-Usul (vol. 4 p. 299) he lists the kinds of narrations which are known
with certainty to be untrue and baseless. The fourth kind is the following:
The narration which is narrated at a time when narrations have already become
established, and when it is searched for it cannot be found in books nor in the
memories of the narrators—such a narration is known to be baseless.
The same line reasoning is to be found in Abul Husayn al-Basri’s book, al-Mu‘tamad
(vol. 2 p. 79):
A narration which, after the stabilization of hadith, is searched for but cannot be
traced in the corpus of hadith, is known for a fact to be a forgery, since we know
that the ahadith have been documented. The narration of a hadith after
documentation can therefore only be the narration of documented ahadith. So if
we do not find that (i.e. we find a hadith being narrated which was not previously
documented) then we know it to be an untrue narration.
Thus, when you see the gloating manner in which Shirazi cites hadith from latter day
“Sunni” authors such as al-Qanduzi and al-Kanji, or the unknown Ibn al-Maghazili and
al-Hamawayni, then pity his gross lack of knowledge of this fieldof hadith, of which he
has set himself up as an expert. And if Shirazi deserves pity, how much more deserving
of pity would those be whose utter gullibility would lead them to swallow the fruits of his
“erudite scholarship” hook, line and sinker?
_______________
The question one cannot help asking oneself is this: Can a book as elliptical, as blatantly
dishonest, and as seriously defective in scholarship as this one ever serve to build bridges
over the yawning chasm which separates the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shi‘ah? This book
was never intended for that purpose. Its publication today stands as the unmistakable
recommitment by the Shi‘ah of today to the ideal of yesterday. That ideal is to convert
the Ahl as-Sunnah to the faith of the Shi‘ah. The author preferred to refer to himself in
the book as “Da‘i”. This was mistranslated by the translators—who obviously do not
know Arabic—as “well-wisher”. Da‘i does not mean well-wisher. It means missionary.
After this introduction I will proceed to analyze and criticize the arguments of the author
in detail. The destruction of the historicity of the book has only removed the veil of
objectivity and fair dialogue that was clouding they sight of the credulous reader. Now
that the book has been revealed to be the work of a Shi‘i missionary using a deceptive
literary device to win the trust and confidence of his credulous reader, the only thing that
remains is to critically analyze his arguments. Towards the fulfillment of that objective I
seek the aid of Allah.
The Verse of
Wilayah
“Your Wali is only
Allah, His
Messenger, and the
believers who
establish prayer
and give charity,
and they bow
down.” (al-
Ma’idah:55)
Meaning and context
This verse is called the “Verse of Wilayah” due to the appearance of the
word wali in it. Linguistically the word wilayah may have one of two
meanings.
Wilayah as Authority
The one meaning is authority. The wali would then be the possessor of
authority. The Shi‘ah have arbitrarily latched on to this meaning, seeking
thereby to prove the Imamah of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu. By coupling this
meaning of the term to the narrations which will come under discussion in
due course—the gist of which is that Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu once
gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the state of ruku‘, and that the verse was
revealed on that occasion—they draw the conclusion that the only legitimate
authority in the Muslim community is that of Allah, His Messenger and the
Imam. Any other kind of authority, like that of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and
‘Uthman radiyallahu ‘anhum, for example, is then illegitimate and
contradicts the Qur’an.
Wilayah as Friendship
The other meaning of wilayah, which in this sense might also appear as
walayah, is a relationship of affection, attachment and solidarity in which
each individual becomes the friend and protector of the other. In this sense
the wali is then that person or entity whom you regard as your friend, your
ally, the one with whom you associate, who can be counted upon to protect
you and defend your rights. In this sense it stands opposed to terms such as
“enemy”, “foe” and “adversary”.
In order to see which of these two meanings apply to the verse, one needs to
look at the context in which it stands. The Verse of Wilayah is the 55th verse
of Surah al-Ma’idah. In order for us to get the complete picture of the
context in which it stands, we need to go back a few verses. In verse 51
Allah Ta‘ala says:
O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as
your awliya (plural of wali). They are the awliya of one another.
Whoever amongst you takes them as his awliya is one of them.
Verily Allah does not guide the unjust people.
It can be seen from this verse that Allah Ta‘ala is definitely not speaking of
wilayah in the sense of authority. What is being spoken of here is taking
non-Muslims as allies, friends and protectors.
When Allah then says in verse 55 that “your true wali is only Allah, His
Messenger and the Believers” it is clear that it is wilayah in the sense of
mutual solidarity and friendship, and not wilayah in the sense of authority,
that is meant.
This meaning of wilayah is repeated again in verse 57:
O you who believe, do not take as your awliya those who take your
religion for a mockery and fun from amongst those who received
the Scripture before you, and from amongst the disbelievers.
In light of the fact that in the preceding as well as successive verses wilayah
is used in the sense of the relationship we have described earlier, it is
unacceptable, and indeed most incoherent, to claim that in this verse in the
middle it has been used in the sense of authority. The meaning of the verse
of Wilayah is therefore that a Muslim’s allegiance should be only to Allah,
His Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and the Believers. Of the
exclusive and pre-emptive right to authority which the Shi‘ah seek to read
into it, the verse does not speak at all.
This is further corroborated by an authentic narration documented by Ibn
Jarir at-Tabari and others, which states that verse 51 was revealed in
connection with ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radiyallahu ‘anhu and ‘Abdullah ibn
Ubayy, both of whom had wilayah relationships with the Jews of Madinah.
‘Ubadah radiyallahu ‘anhu came to Rasulullah and announced that he was
severing all ties of wilayah with them, while ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy insisted
on keeping ties with them, saying that he feared a turnabout of
circumstances. It was then that the 55th verse of al-Ma’idah was revealed.
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 68)
Narrations
The main grounds for forcing the verse out of its context are the narrations
which exist, according to which the verse was revealed when Sayyiduna ‘Ali
radiyallahu ‘anhu gave his ring to a beggar whilst in the position of ruku‘.
In what follows we will investigate the authenticity of those narrations.
It must be remembered, as a matter of principle, that untruthfulness in
narrating hadith was a very real phenomenon in the early centuries of Islam,
the result of which has been that a lot of spurious, unauthentic material was
brought into circulation. Much of this material was later included into hadith
collections by compilers who were motivated more by a desire to document
a largely oral tradition, than to separate authentic from unauthentic material.
Whoever thereafter wishes to utilize the material thus compiled will first
have to ascertain the authenticity of the material he wishes to quote. By
failing to first prove the authenticity of one’s quoted material, the entire
argument which is based upon that material is rendered useless.
After this very important introductory remark, we now launch into a study of
the available narrated material. We will first look at what has been narrated
from some of the Sahabah, and thereafter at what has been narrated with
chains of narration that go back only as far as the Tabi‘in.
This isnad is one of the most famous chains of forgery. Each one of the three
narrators before Ibn ‘Abbas was a notorious liar. Abu Salih, whose name
was Badham or Badhan, was described as a liar by his own student Isma‘il
ibn Abi Khalid. (See Abu Ja‘far al-‘Uqayli, ad-Du‘afa’ al-Kabir vol. 1 p.
165)
The next narrator, Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, was one of the most
notorious liars of Kufah. His biography in al-Mizzi’s Tahdhib al-Kamal is
filled with statements of the ‘ulama of his time who denounced him as an
extremely unreliable reporter, and even a blatant liar. (See al-Mizzi, Tahdhib
al-Kamal vol. 25 pp. 246-253)
Two of the statements in his biography are of particular interest here. The
one is a statement by his kinsman Abu Janab al-Kalbi who records Abu
Salih as saying that he never narrated any tafsir to Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib.
The second is an admission of guilt by Abu Salih. Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri
narrates that al-Kalbi said, “Whatever tafsir I narrated from Abu Salih is
untrue. Do not narrate it from me.”
The third person in this isnad is Muhammad ibn Marwan, who is also known
as as-Suddi as-Saghir (the younger Suddi). In him we have another notorious
forger whose mendacity was exposed by both his contemporaries and the
‘ulama who came after him. (See Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 pp. 392-394)
This particular chain of narration (as-Suddi as-Saghir, from al-Kalbi, from
Abu Salih) became so infamous amongst the ‘ulama that it was given the
epithet Silsilat al-Kadhib, meaning the Chain of Mendacity. (See as-Suyuti,
Tadrib ar-Rawi vol. 1 p. 181)
1.1.2 The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas
The second isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t is also documented in the Tafsir of Ibn
Mardawayh. It runs through ad-Dahhak ibMuzahim from Ibn ‘Abbas. The
weak point in this isnad lies in the fact that ad-Dahhak never met Ibn
‘Abbas, leave alone narrate from him. (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71)
In the book al-Jarh wat-Ta‘dil by Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi there is a narration
which throws some light upon the link “ad-Dahhak—Ibn ‘Abbas”. Ibn Abi
Hatim narrates with an authentic isnad from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi
Maysarah that he asked ad-Dahhak: “Did you personally hear anything from
Ibn ‘Abbas?” Ad-Dahhak replied in the negative. ‘Abd al-Malik then asked
him: “So this which you narrate (from him), from whom did you take it?”
Ad-Dahhak replied: “From this one and that one.” (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh
wat-Ta‘dil vol. 4 tarjamah no. 2024)
This shows that ad-Dahhak did not exercise great care about the persons
from whom he received the material he later transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbas.
Having been a contemporary of Muhammad ibn as-Sa’ib al-Kalbi, it is not at
all improbable that he might have heard the story of the beggar from him.
1.1.3 The third isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas
The third isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas t runs through the famous mufassir
Mujahid ibn Jabr, from Ibn ‘Abbas. It is narrated by ‘Abd ar-Razzaq as-
San‘ani in his Tafsir. He narrates it from ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, who
narrates it from his father Mujahid. ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid is
described by the rijal critics as matruk, which implies that his unreliability is
a matter of consensus amongst them. (Ibn Hajar, Taqrib at-Tahdhib no.
4263) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri described him as a liar. (Tahdhib al-Kamal
vol. 18 p. 517) There is reasonable doubt about whether he ever heard hadith
from his father. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 18 p. 517)
An alternative narration from Ibn ‘Abbas t
From the above it can be seen that not one of the various narrations from Ibn
‘Abbas is authentic. What adds to the baselessness of that report is the fact
that they contradict another more reliable report from Ibn ‘Abbas on the
tafsir of this verse. This report is documented in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir, who
narrates it with his isnad from the Tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah. According
to this report Ibn ‘Abbas was of the opinion that the words “and those who
believe, who establish prayer and give charity, and they bow down” in the
verse refer to all Muslims in general. (Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan
vol. 6 p. 186)
This interpretation by Ibn ‘Abbas is not only in harmony with the meaning
of wilayah as outlined above, it also agrees with the use of the plural form
(“those who believe”) in the verse.
1.2 ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu ‘anhu
The hadith featuring Sayyiduna ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiyallahu ‘anhu as its
narrator is recorded in al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat (vol. 6 p. 294, no. 6232) of at-
Tabrani. Its isnad runs as follows:
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Sa’igh—Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari—Ishaq ibn
‘Abdilllah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn—Hasan ibn Zayd—his
father Zayd ibn Hasan—his grandfather—‘Ammar
This isnad suffers from a serious defect. Khalid ibn Yazid al-‘Umari is an
extremely untrustworthy narrator who has been denounced as a liar by
Yahya in Ma‘in and Abu Hatim ar-Razi. Ibn Hibban says that he transmits
forgeries on the authority of trustworthy narrators. Al-‘Uqayli says that he
transmits baseless narrations. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 2 pp. 740-743)
In this particular case he presents his forgery in the name of a completely
unknown narrator, Ishaq ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn.
This name is nowhere traceable in the biographical dictionaries of hadith
transmitters. Hasan ibn Zayd, his father Zayd ibn Hasan, and his grandfather
Sayyiduna Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhum were historical
figures, but it is evident that their association with this hadith is completely
fictional, being fabricated as it is by a known forger, Khalid ibn Yazid
al-‘Umari.
1.3 ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu
The hadith with Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib t as its narrator was contained
in the Tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh, a source which is no longer extant.
However, Hafiz Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has stated that this narration, like
that of ‘Ammar and Abu Rafi‘, is unreliable “due to the weakness of their
isnads and the fact that their narrators are unknown”. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol.
2 p. 71)
The fact that amongst all hadith sources it is only in the relatively late Tafsir
of Ibn Mardawayh (who died in the year 410 AH) that this narration appears,
is a further indication of its spuriousness.
1.4 Abu Rafi‘ radiyallahu ‘anhu
This narration too, is recorded by Ibn Mardawayh. Fortunately it is also
recorded by at-Tabrani in his work al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (vol. 1 pp. 320-321),
so unlike the previous case, we are in a position to conduct a first-hand
investigation into its isnad.
Before going into that it must first be noted that this narration differs from
all of the above versions in that it does not recount the story of the beggar. It
only speaks of Rasulullah r waking up from his sleep and reciting this verse.
Thereafter he tells Abu Rafi‘ that there will come a people who will fight
‘Ali t , and that it will be incumbent upon people to fight them.
In ad-Durr al-Manthur (vol. 2 p. 294), where it is stated as being recorded
by Ibn Mardawayh, at-Tabrani as well as Abu Nu‘aym, there is an addition
which goes that after reciting the verse Rasulullah r said: “Praise be to Allah
who completed His favour for ‘Ali.” This addition must be from the book of
either Ibn Mardawayh or Abu Nu‘aym, since it does not appear in al-
Mu‘jam al-Kabir. It is neither in Hilyat al-Awliya of Abu Nu‘aym, so it must
be from another of his works which is not available to us.
The isnad in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir is not free from serious defects. The
second narrator in the chain, namely Yahya ibn al-Hasan ibn Furat, is totally
unknown (Majma‘ az-Zawa’id vol. 9 p. 134), while its fourth narrator,
Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydillah, is regarded as unreliable by the vast majority
of critics. For example, Abu Hatim describes him as “da‘if al-hadith,
munkar al-hadith jiddan” (weak in hadith, narrates extremely unique and
uncorroborated material), and Ibn Ma‘in says about him “laysa bi-shay’ (as
a hadith transmitter he amounts to nothing)”. (Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p.
37) Ibn ‘Adi concurs with Abu Hatim that he narrates completely
uncorroborated material. (al-Kamil vol. 6 p. 114)
Summary of
Narrations from Sahabah
From the above it can be seen that not a single one of the various narrations
from Sahabah that may be adduced as evidence that the Verse of Wilayah
refers to Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu, is authentic.
Shi‘i writers often quote material of this kind from Sunni sources, seeking to
mislead their uninformed Sunni readership by the amount of sources they are
able to produce. A general principle that must be kept in mind with regard to
such attempts at deception is that any narration is only as good as its chain
of narration. Any material quoted must therefore first be authenticated
before it can be used to substantiate any argument.
Hereafter we proceed to look at narrations of the beggar-incident whose
chains of narration go back only as far as the Tabi‘in.
We will now proceed with an investigation into the authenticity of the four
reports narrated from Tabi‘in. The four Tabi‘in from whom the incident of
the beggar is narrated are:
1. ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim
2. Salamah ibn Kuhayl
3. Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Suddi
4. Mujahid ibn Jabr
1. ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim
The first narration is that of ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim which is documented in
the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir from its original source, the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim.
(Ibn Kathir vol. 2 p. 71) ‘Utbah says:
They (those who believe, who establish salah and give zakah, and they bow
down) are the Believers and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
This shows that as-Suddi is of the opinion that the verse is not specific, and
that it applies to all Believers in general. However, he does mention the
incident of the beggar, and states it here almost as an afterthought. It is
obvious that he is influenced by two things.
Firstly he is influenced by the context in which the ayah appears. The
context definitely provides no grounds for restricting the meaning of the
verse to any particular incident or person, and that is what causes him to say
that the scope of the verse is general so as to include all Believers.
On the other hand he is also influenced by a report which reached him about
the incident of the beggar. Our quest is to investigate with what degree of
authenticity that report was handed down to him.
We know that at the time when as-Suddi lived many reliable hadith narrators
from amongst the elder and middle generations of the Tabi‘in were alive.
But we also know that there were also numerous notorious forgers and liars,
who for the sake of propagating their heresies, resorted to forgery and
invented history. For the critic it is thus not simply as easy as to accept
whatever is narrated, but to investigate.
As-Suddi did not personally witness the incident, nor was he ever in contact
with anyone who could have witnessed it. His informant therefore had to be
another person. He himself does not state the name of his informant, nor of
the eye witness from who the informant received the report.
The general failure of all of these persons— ‘Utbah ibn Abi Hakim, Salamah
ibn Kuhayl and as-Suddi— to mention the names of their sources points
strongly to the fact that the whole incident was nothing more than hearsay,
more of a rumour than an authenticated report. It was brought into
circulation by an unscrupulous person whose identity has remained a
mystery. Thereafter it was circulated by word of mouth, with some
commentatormentioning the incident but refraining from naming their
sources, and other less scrupulous persons projecting it right back to the
Sahabah. Not a single one of the various chains of narrations fulifil the
requirements of authenticity.
4. Mujahid ibn Jabr
We earlier discussed the narration transmitted from Mujahid by his son ‘Abd
al-Wahhab. That narration was on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas.
In the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari there is another narration from Mujahid in
which mention of the story of the beggar is made (vol. 6 p. 186). The
statement appears there as Mujahid’s own, and not as his narration from Ibn
‘Abbas.
However, the person who narrates from him, namely Ghalib ibn
‘Ubaydillah, is regarded as extremely unreliable by the rijal critics. His
unreliability, like that of ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, is a matter of
consensus amongst the ‘ulama. Abu Hatim describes him as “matruk al-
hadith, munkar al-hadith”(one upon whose extreme unreliability there is
consensus, an unreliable narrator of uncorroborated reports); ad-Daraqutni
says simply “matruk”(technically meaning that he is extremely unreliable
by consensus); and Ibn Ma‘in says “laysa bi-thiqah” (he is not reliable).
(Lisan al-Mizan vol. 5 p. 404)
At this some point some readers might get the impression that the rijal
critics condemned these narrators as unreliable only because they narrate
material which is unpalatable to them. To this we might reply by saying that
this kind of response might be expected from someone who has no
knowledge of the methodology of the Muhaddithin in criticising narrators.
Having here seen quotations from the rijal critics on a few narrators who all
happen to narrate the same hadith, the mind of the non-adept could be
expected to jump to the generalisation that “it is only because these narrators
narrate material favourable to Shi‘ism that they have been censured.” The
tendency to generalise in this way would be even stronger if considered that
in this critical examination the person might be seeing the destruction of
something which he had once thought to be an incontrovertible argument.
Such persons would be well-advised to read up on the methodology of
hadith criticism.
That is only the first part of our reply. The second part is that this particular
person, Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah, does not only narrate this one saying from
Mujahid. He is known to have transmitted other material as well. In Ibn
Hajar’s work Lisan al-Mizan there is a hadith which he narrates, the text of
which is that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam gave Mu‘awiyah an
arrow and told him: “Keep this until you meet me in Jannah.” The hadith is
squarely denounced as a forgery by this very same Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah.
This condemnation of his hadith is definitely not result of prejudice based on
the type of hadith which he transmits. That much even the Shi‘ah will agree
to. It was simply on account of the person’s unreliability and
untrustworthiness, which is, as we have already said, a matter of consensus
amongst the Muhaddithin.
If anyone feels that Ghalib ibn ‘Ubaydillah has been unfairly dealt with by
the rijal critics merely because he narrated something in support of
Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s pre-emptive right to the Khilafah, let him ask himself if he
would would feel the same about the fact that that same Ghalib narrates this
hadith about Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam telling Mu‘awiyah to
keep the arrow until he meets him again in Jannah. An honest response to
this question is sure to reveal exactly where the real prejudice lies.
This narration shows that the incident of the beggar had become quite
popular, despite the fact that none of its narrators is able to produce a chain
of narrators that is free from serious defects. It had become so popular, in
fact, that ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman— who is recognised by the
Shi‘ah as a Tabi‘i who narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (see al-
Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 519 no. 4187)— thought to refer the
matter to the Imam himself. The Imam made it clear to him that the verse
refers to all Believers in general. When told about the claim that it refers
specifically to Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu, the Imam
makes is clear that Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu is neither the specific
subject of the verse, nor is he excluded from it, since he too, is a believer
amongst the Believers. He mentions nothing at all in confirmation of the
incident of the beggar.
To the Shi‘i mind, so used to thinking of the illustrious members of the Ahl
al-Bayt in the despicable terms of taqiyyah, the Imam might well have been
“covering up the truth”. But to any person who truly loves and respects the
Family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam this is an honest
and straightforward answer. Only an anxious and prejudiced mind would
care to read meaning into it that is not there.
CONCLUSION
From this discussion the following conclusions may be drawn:
Firstly,
the context of the verse is general, and gives no cause for believing it to
refer to any specific person.
Secondly,
the incident of the beggar is recorded in reports narrated from four
different Sahabah. Not a single one of those four reports is free from
serious defects in the chains of narration. They are further contradicted
by other narrations which are more reliable.
Thirdly,
narrations from the Tabi‘in suffer from a common defect, in that the
names of the sources who relate the incident are not disclosed. Some of
them suffer from the further defect of untrustworthy narrators. They are
contradicted by a report in which Imam Muhammad al-Baqir himself
attests to the fact that the verse is general and unrestricted in meaning.
The Verse of
Tabligh
O Messenger! Convey that which
was revealed to you from your
Lord. If you will not do so, you
would not have conveyed His
message. And Allah protects you
from the people. Verily Allah does
not guide the people who
transgress. (al-Ma’idah:67)
This verse is called Ayat at-Tabligh (the Verse of Conveyance) on
account of the word balligh (the imperative form of the verb ballagha
i.e. to convey) in it.
The ahadith which have come down to us, which state the
circumstances of its revelation, may be divided into four categories:
(1) ahadith which state that the verse was revealed during a
military expedition, when a bedouin Arab crept up on Rasulullah
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam and tried to kill him with his own
sword
(4) ahadith which state that his uncle Abu Talib used to send
someone with him to guard him wherever he went, until the
revelation of the verse
The first three categories do not contradict one another. They may all
be speaking of the same thing, the only difference between them
being that each of the three of them deals with a specific aspect of the
revelation of the verse. The ahadith of the first category speak of the
place and the incident of the bedouin; those of the second category
inform us what steps Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam took after
the revelation of the verse; while the solitary narration in the third
category informs us that his uncle ‘Abbas used to be amongst those
who used to guard him.
²²²
Being thus assured that they will never discover his dishonesty in
concealing the existence of alternative material on the issue, he goes
ahead to convince his listener or reader that the quotation which he
has supplied him with is the unadulterated truth. He emphasises the
fact that he has taken this quotation not from a Shi‘i source, but from a
Sunni one. The Sunni reader/listener is thus left with the impression
that what he is getting is the truth, since it comes, in a manner of
speaking, from the horse’s mouth.
The source given for the above claim is the book Asbab an-Nuzul by
Abul Hasan al-Wahidi. (Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an, p. 204) Al-Wahidi
narrates most of the material in his book with their complete isnads.
Therefore, quoting material from al-Wahidi without stating the nature
of the isnad on the authority of which he has quoted is basically an act
of deception. It is relatively easy to deceive the public with such
quotations, since they lack a proper understanding of the nature of
quotation by isnad. The lay person looks only to the author of the book,
and not to the chain of narrators on whose authority the author
narrates. To deceive him is therefore quite simple.
In the book Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an we find that this statement, which
ascribed to Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri radiyallahu ‘anhu, is narrated via a
chain of narration which runs as follows:
al-Wahidi— Muhammad ibn ‘Ali as-Saffar— Hasan ibn Ahmad al-
Makhladi— Muhammad ibn Hamdun ibn Khalid— Muhammad ibn
Ibrahim al-Hulwani— Hasan ibn Hammad, Sajjadah— ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis—
al-A‘mash and Abu’l-Jahhaf— ‘Atiyyah (ibn Sa‘d al‘Awfi)— Abu Sa‘id
al-Khudri...
1. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis: This narrator lived in Kufah during the latter
half of the second century AH. There is consensus amongst the
rijal critics that he was an unreliable transmitter. (Tahdhib al-
Kamal vol. 20 p. 502-504) His unreliability stems from the fact
that the material transmitted by him was for the greater part
uncorroborated or contradictory to more reliable versions. In the
case of this particular narration he has transmitted a hadith of
which no trace can be found anywhere else. Since his own
reliability is already seriously questionable, we cannot by any
objective standards place confidence in the lone narration of one
such as he. Ibn Hibban sums up the reason for dismissing him as
a hadith transmitter in the following words: “Mistakes of his in
transmitting hadith were so serious that he deserved to be
abandoned (as a narrator).” Abu Zur‘ah ar-Razi states: “He is
munkar al-hadith (meaning that he uncorroborated material, or
material which contradicts more reliable versions); he transmits
uncorroborated ahadith on the authority of reliable narrators.”
(Kitab al-Majruhin vol. 2 p. 176)
There is another narration which holds connection with this one. It was
originally documented in the tafsir of Abu Bakr Ibn Mardawayh (died
410 AH), but his tafsir is no longer extant. It has been preserved, albeit
without isnad, by as-Suyuti in his book ad-Durr al-Manthur. (vol. 2 p.
298) The text of this narration runs as follows:
Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Ibn Mas‘ud that he said: In the time of
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam we used to read: “O
messenger, convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord
that ‘Ali is the Master of the Believers; If you do not do so, you would
not have conveyed His message. And Allah protects you from the
people...
However, it is not the only indicator. In the absence of the isnad, which
would have pinpointed the exact person responsible for this blatant
forgery, we still have the significant fact that this narration assails the
sanctity of the Qur’an.
Classical Shi‘i works like the tafsirs of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi and
Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi, the Kitab al-Qira’at of Ahmad ibn Muhammad
as-Sayyari, al-Ihtijaj by Ahmad ibn ‘Ali at-Tabarsi, the book al-Manaqib
by Ibn Shahrashub and the book Kashf al-Yaqin by Ibn Tawus all
contain narrations which state that the name of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu
was mentioned in this verse, but “they” (meaning the Sahabah
radiyallahu ‘anhum) removed it from there. (Mulla Husayn Nuri Tabarsi,
Fasl al-Khitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab, cited by Ihsan Ilahi
Zahir, ash-Shi‘ah wal-Qur’an pp. 215-217)
It is therefore not at all inconceivable that this narration found its way
into the tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh through an isnad going back to its Shi‘i
originator.
But ultimately, even though his person was protected against them, his
mission was thwarted by those very same “enemies”, and a struggle of
twenty three years ended in disgraceful failure (na‘udhu billah) when
this entire commwhich he had given twenty three years of his life to
build, reverts back into kufr, with the exception of a mere handful.
_______________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir
ed. Mahmud Ibrahim Zayid, Dar al-Wa‘y, Halab (Aleppo), 2nd edition, 1402
The Roots of
Sunni-Shi‘i
Differences in Fiqh
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
It is often alleged by the protagonists of Sunni-Shi‘i unity that differences
between the two schools are not more grave or serious than the differences
that exist within the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Sunni-Shi‘i
differences should therefore be treated with the same tolerance and
acceptance as Hanafi-Shafi‘i differences, and it is in the spirit of this
proposed "mutual tolerance" that the advocates of unity speak of the Shi‘i
Ja‘fari school of jurisprudence as nothing more than a "fifth madhhab".
It is therefore only normal for the average Sunni lay person who has come
into contact with advocates of Sunni-Shi‘i unity to wonder about, or even be
taken in, by such a claim. How serious are the differences between the Ahl
as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah really? Could they ever be reconciled? If not,
could there at least be an amicable agreement to disagree, just like the
Hanafis disagree with the Shafi‘is, or the Malikis with the Hanbalis? It is
these questions that this article sets out to answer.
Full reconciliation between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Ithna ‘Ashari Ja‘fari
Shi‘ah is not merely elusive, it is simply an impossibility. Anyone who
knows the reality of the issues that separate the Shi`ah from the Ahl as-
Sunnah is bound to agree. Nothing sums up the truth of the situation better
than the words of Hamid Algar—an ardent admirer of Khomeini and the
revolution—, who describes Sunnism and Shi‘ism as "two parallel lines that
cannot meet".1 The endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the Ahl
as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah is therefore a wasted effort. The next best option is
thus mutual tolerance and acceptance.
In order to test the viability of tolerance and acceptance between the Ahl as-
Sunnah and the Shi‘ah we will have to look more closely at the issues that
separate the one from the other. These issues can be categorised into two
groups:
1. fundamental differences,
which include articles of faith, and all such issues that could be
termed "differences in principle", that by their nature give rise
to differences in secondary matters;
2. secondary differences,
i.e. difference in matters of jurisprudence, like the way salah is
performed, or that marriage and divorce take place, etc..
Each of the fundamental issues of difference would require a separate study
to see how they affect compatibility between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the
Shi‘ah. In this article it is our intention to look more closely at the type of
difference that is usually dismissed as "secondary", and thus "unimportant".
Are differences in fiqh between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah really so
insignificant that we can jusitifiably turn a blind eye when we encounter
them?
There can be no doubt that this question is anathema to the propagators of
Shi‘ism amongst the Ahl as-Sunnah, as well as to those who have fallen prey
to their propaganda. Yet, if it is truth we seek, we cannot allow the
preferences of such obviously biased persons to deter us. The "unity" such
people strive to achieve, and which they accuse others of trying to destroy, is
a unity forged in ignorance. How much do we really know about the Shi‘ah?
We have taken them on face value, and on grounds of what we have thus
learnt about them we proceed to create unity. The naivety of such a position
in a matter of far reaching religious implications is far too obvious. A unity
founded upon ignorance is a very precarious unity indeed. Like a mirage, it
seems very real when seen from afar, but as soon as you approach it, it slips
out of existence.
There are two levels at which one can look at the differences in
jurisprudence between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. The first is the
level of external appearance. When the differences in fiqh are inspected at
this level they do not seem any more alien than the differences that exist
between the various schools of Sunni jurisprudence. In fact, in many, or
even most cases one will find the Shi‘i position to be conformity with at
least one of the four Sunni madhahib. This is illustrated in the following
three examples:
1. In the salah, the jalsat al-istirahah is held to be sunnah by the
Shi‘ah. In this they concur with the view of the Shafi‘i madhhab.2
2. In marriage the majority of Shi‘i jurists hold the view that
khalwah, i.e. valid seclusion, has no effect on the mahr (dowry)
nor upon any other aspect of the marital contract. In this they are
once again agreement with the Shafi‘is, but differ from the other
three schools.3
3. If the husband is unable to pay the mahr the wife is not entitled
to divorce according to the Shi‘i and the Hanafi schools. The
Malikis, the Shafi‘is and the Hanbalis all have different views.4
It is on this level that most people view the differences that exist between the
Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. Even certain `ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah,
looking at the matter on this level, have been known to express the view that
"differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah are no more serious
than the differences that exist between the various schools of Sunni
jurisprudence".
However, when we confine ourselves to viewing the problem of Sunni-Shi‘i
differences on this level we are in effect closing our eyes to the most
important aspect of those differences: THE ROOT. The true nature of
Sunni-Shi‘i differences can never be appreciated or understood in full
without comprehending the reasons for their existence. It is only when the
problem has been viewed and grasped on the level of the reasons for
difference, and not merely the external appearance of difference, that one
is justified to take further steps.
When the Shi‘ah differ from the Ahl as-Sunnah, it is not the same as when
one Sunni school differs from the other. This is because the various Sunni
schools all trace their roots back to the same legacy. They share a common
heritage in the Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. When
differences do occur, they occur not because one madhhab bases itself on a
legacy other than the legacy of the other. Both believe in and hold on to the
same legacy. Their differences are caused by secondary factors, like whether
certain categories of hadith possess binding authority or not, or the
divergence in the methods they regard as valid to interpret the legacy and
extrapolate from it. The following two examples illustrate how such
differences occur:
1. The mursal hadith (a hadith with an interruption in its
chain of narrators between the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi
wasallam and the Tabi‘i), for example, is deemed to
possess binding authority by the Hanafis, while the Shafi‘is
do not accept it except if it is supported by any one of a
number of external factors. If we imagine a mursal hadith
that is not supported by any of the factors the Shafi‘is
stipulate, it is only logical to expect that the Shafi‘i ruling
on the issue the hadith pertains to will differ from the
Hanafi ruling.
2. Spoken words are sometimes accompanied by implied
meanings. For example, when it is said, "Stay awake," this
also means "Don't sleep". This unspoken opposite meaning
is termed mafhum al-mukhalafah. The Shafi‘is accept it as
a valid means of extracting meaning from a text, while the
Hanafis do not. If the former extract such meaning from a
text and base a ruling upon the meaning inferred by this
method, and the latter base their ruling upon some other
grounds, there is bound to be a measure of difference in the
outcome of their respective views.
In the Shi‘i perspective of Islamic legislative history the fact that the
Sahabah deliberately corrupted and distorted the teachings of the Nabi
sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is such a fundamental truth, that is came to be
looked upon as a criterion of truth in itself. This position is reflected in the
way they deal with the phenomenon of Shi`i narrations that contradict one
another. Abu Ja‘far al-Kulayni, in the introduction to al-Kafi, the most
important of their four canonical hadith collections, expresses it in the
following terms:
Know... that no one can distinguish narrations of the Possessors of
Knowledge (the Imams) by his opinion; except according to the words of
the Possessor of Knowledge: 'Compare them to the Qur’an. Accept that
which is in accordance with it, and reject that which contradicts it,' and his
words: 'Abandon that which is in accordance with the people (the Ahl as-
Sunnah), for truly, guidance lies in being different to them'.7
This particular perspective has persisted in the Shi‘i psyche over the
centuries since Kulayni and his teacher Qummi, until it became, in the
opinion of Khomeini and all other Shi‘i jurists, one of the two principal
methods of juridical preference in cases of conflicting narrations. In light of
the alarming frequency with which contradictions occur in the ahadith of the
Shi‘ah (one of their four major hadith sources, al-Istibsar, is devoted to the
phenomenon of contradiction) the importance of a principle of this nature is
evident. We reproduce here from Khomeini's works various Shi‘i narrations
in which he and other Shi‘i mujtahids find justification for their view:
1. Hasan ibn Abil Jahm asked: If something is narrated from Abu
‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far), and something contrary to it is also narrated from
him, which should we accept?
The Imam answered: Accept that which is in contradiction to the people,
and avoid that which is accordance with them.8
2. Abu ‘Abdillah said: Our Shi‘ah are those who submit to our command,
who accept our words, and who act contrary to our enemies. Whoever is
not like that is not of us.9
3. ‘Ali ibn Asbat narrates that he asked Imam Rida: (What should I do in
case) an incident occurs for which I am need of a juridical opinion, but
nowhere in the city do I find anyone of your partisans (the Shi‘ah) whom I
can ask?
He replied: Go to the (Sunni) faqih of the city and refer your case to him.
Then take the opposite of whatever answer he gives you, for verily, therein
lies the truth.10
It is on account of these and other similar narrations which the Shi‘ah claim
to emanate from their infallible Imams that the mujtahids of the Ja‘fari
madhhab were led to formulate the principle Khomeini expresses in these
terms:
In cases of conflicting reports, contradiction of the Ahl as-Sunnah is a
factor of preference ... In fact, it is the most common and widespread
factor of preference in all chapters of fiqh and upon the tongues of the
fuqaha.11
There is no ambiguity with regard to the issue of contradicting the Ahl as-
Sunnah being a factor of preference in the case of conflicting narrations.11
The factors of tarjih (preference) are limited to two: conforming to the
Qur’an and the Sunnah, and contradicting the Ahl as-Sunnah.12
All of these quotations show a definite obsession with being different from
the Ahl as-Sunnah. We therefore ask: If so much importance is attached to
being different, to the point of it being regarded as the criterion of truth, why
should there be such a noise and clamour for unity? Why should the Shi‘ah
seek unity with people whose version of Islam they regard as the corruption
of the Din of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam wrought by the hands
of his Companions? And even if the Shi‘ah do manage to create a semblance
of such unity, how much goodwill and sincerity can be expected of them if
one considers their particular perspective of the legacy which forms the basis
of our faith and practice?
We have chosen Khomeini's views as representative of Shi‘i opinion for a
very special reason, and that is the fact that in the contemporary world it is
he and his successors who are the most vociferous proponents of Sunni-Shi‘i
unity, and who dismiss Sunni-Shi‘i differences as negligible. In more than
one of his public addresses he takes to task those who attempt to create
mischief amongst the Muslims by "misleading" them into believing that
there are substantial differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah.
However, closer scrutiny of his jurisprudential works reveal that such
condemnations are nothing but political rhetoric. When we remove the
image he projects as Leader of the Revolution, we are left with merely
another Shi‘i scholar imprisoned by the fundamentals of his faith. In his
eyes, and likewise in the eyes of generations of Shi‘i scholars before him,
the legacy of the Sunnah upon which their Sunni "brothers" base their
practice of Islam is the product of the envious mischief and the disbelief of
the Sahabah, who in the hope of destroying the cause of the Ahl al-Bayt
distorted every teaching of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam they could
lay their hands upon. If this is how they regard the very basis upon which the
foundations of our Din rests, what remains to be said for unity?
______________________________________
REFERENCES
1. Shi‘ism p. ed. by Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.
2. Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Hilli: al-Jami‘ lish-Sharai’ p.75 (Mu’assasat Sayyid ash-
Shuhada’, Qum 1405)
3. Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah: The Five Schools of Islamic Law p. 319
(Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995)
4. ibid. p. 317
5. Tafsir al-Qummi, editor's foreword
6. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih by Àyatullah Khomeini, p. 82, cited in Dr. Zayd al-‘Is:
al-Khomeini wal-Wajh al-Àkhar p. 131
7. al-Kafi vol. 1 pp. 55-56 (Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut 1992)
8. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p.80
9. Tahrir al-Wasilah p. 83, from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah by al-Hurr al-‘Àmili p.
225
10. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p.82, from ‘Uyun Akhbar ar-Rida by Ibn Babawayh al-
Qummi, vol. 1 p. 275
11. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p. 83
12. at-Ta‘adul wat-Tarjih p. 84
Is there a single capital city in the There is no Sunni director in any of the
world without a Sunni mosque, with government authorities, ministries,
the exception to Tehran -the capital of embassies, or local and provincial
the Shi'ah-, which has forty Christian governments, hospitals or
churches and a cemetery for the principalities; not even in the lowest
Baha'is government posts anywhere in Iran.
Whilst we are living in the twentieth
century, we find a third of the The double-faced regime was able,
population of a nation deprived of through raising the banner of Islamic
their most basic rights. Is there any unity, to fool many Muslims outside
other country on the face of the earth Iran as they ask them to attend their
which prevents its people from conferences, and transform their way of
choosing names like Umar, A'ishah, thinking within a short period of time.
Hafsah, Abu Bakr, Zubair...
Would you kindly give us a glimpse of the history of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran, the main
areas where they are concentrated and their numbers?
It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the Tenth Century of the Hijri calendar.
During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in every discipline; the most salient of these
facts is that the six most authentic Hadith books (ie. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, etc.) were
written by scholars from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran. However, when the
Safawid Shi'ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of the Sunni scholars
and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of the largest cities that were at the
foremost centers of religious sciences, such as Tibriz, Isfahan, Ray, and Tus. There were many
Sunni Muslims who were killed, forced into Shi'ism, or compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving
Iran as a center for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims. Fredinand, the ambassador to the
Austrian King, remarked: "Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the
Qur'an this day like the Algerians," meaning that his nation would have been conquered by the
Ottoman Muslims. However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt
the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna.
The Sunni Muslims in Iran number about 15 to 20 million, living mainly in the mountainous and
border regions. They are mainly Kurds, Turks, Baluchis, and Arabs. There is also a good number
living in the cities.
How was the condition of Ahlus Sunnah before the revolution, did they participate
in it, and how and what was their reward from this participation?
Ahlus Sunnah hail from non-Persian people. They were regarded as second class citizens under the
Shah regime, since they mostly resided in rural areas, as well as the fact that their creed differed
from that of the Shi'ah. As the Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis and others of Ahlus Sunnah did not have any
role in the idolatrous Persian nationalism, they did not have equal rights socially nor economically
with Persians, "The Chosen People"! The Shah regime was secular, non-religious, so it dealt with
religions and sects in a similar way. Some of the Ahlus Sunnah scholars have opposed the Shah
and his secular regime, and some of these scholars initially sympathised with the Khomeini
revolution such as Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah as well as a few others, may Allah forgive them.
Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah opposed Khomeini shortly after the revolution. He was arrested and
imprisoned for 10 years, even though his sentence was only for five years. He was only released
when the authorities felt that he was on the brink of death. I was a witness to the words of Ahmad
Mufti Zadah to Khomeini in the latter's house where he said: "Khomeini, you promised me an Islamic
republic, however you established a Safawi-Shi'ite republic. Although I believe that I am not
permitted to raise arms against you [such was his belief, unfortunately], however, I will fight you
politically."
This occurred during the same meeting where my brother Mawlawi Abdul Aziz, may Allah have
mercy on him, the representative for Baluchistan in the Authoritative Council, opposed clause 13 of
the Iranian constitution, and then resigned from the Council. He later formed, along with Sheikh
Zadah, the centralised Consultative Council of Ahlus Sunnah, and held two annual meetings, one in
Tehran and one in Baluchistan. Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was also able to obtain a promised allocation of
10,000 square meters of land in Tehran to build a mosque and a centre for Ahlus Sunnah. This
promise was given due to internal and external pressures, when the regime was still weak and
developing.
This promise, however, was blatantly dishonoured as soon as the regime became stronger. The
land allocated for constructing the mosque was confiscated, as well as the offices and bank
accounts of the Consultative Council, whose scholars, members and supporters -both men and
women- were detained.
The regime continued in its efforts to destroy the infrastructure of Ahlus Sunnah, spreading between
their ranks deviations, innovations and acts of Shirk. They unashamedly told the imprisoned
students of Sheikh Zadah: "We hoped that you would have taken up arms against us, so we could
have had an excuse to uproot you, as we did with the other parties."
The regime then persecuted any person who dared to call for their rights, and punished them with
imprisonment or execut, or degrading their character, as was the case with the martyr Bahman
Shakoury. Many Sheikhs were imprisoned, exiled, tortured and humiliated, such as the Baluchistan
parliamentarian member Mawlawi Nathar Mohammad who was subjected to sever torture and made
false confessions under duress, until he escaped and was able to flee to Pakistan. He was not able
to get a visa to enter any of the Gulf countries, not even as a labourer. Sheikh Mawlawi Muhyiddin
and Sheikh Dost Mohammed Sirawani were also imprisoned, then exiled to the city of Najaf Abad,
as well as many other Sheikhs. There is also Sheikh Ibrahim Dammini who continues to be
imprisoned and put to torture for more than five years.
Ahlus Sunnah were rewarded under the current sectarian government with a life of dishonor and
subjugation, and their situation is far worse -as I have experienced myself- than that of the Muslims
in occupied Palestine. Is there a single capital city in the world without a Sunni mosque, with the
exception to Tehran -the capital of the Shi'ah-, which has forty Christian churches and a cemetery
for the Baha'is. In all, even the infidel minorities have their temples and places of worship and their
freedom of worship, yet Ahlus Sunnah are not allowed to build any mosque or cemetery. Khameni
stated after the revolution: "all the Persians in the world can look at Iran as their nation", they are,
therefore, first class citizens of Iran, even if they were Magians from India. As for us, we must be
exiled from our land because neither us nor our parents accepted Shi'ism or Magianism!
The regime planted the seeds of conflict amongst the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, and strove to
deride the character of the notable scholars, replacing them with government servants.
It then instigated internal conflicts between the scholars, the leaders of the community, and the
intellectuals to create an environment filled with distrust and insecurity. They also used some of the
ignorant people who adhere to supposedly Sunni Tariqats (orders), to attack the scholars of Ahlus
Sunnah, especially Sheikh Ahmad Mufti Zadah, labeling him as a Wahhabi, although the Sheikh did
not adhere to the Salafi creed.
The regime then aimed at Ahlus Sunnah schools, and tried to influence their curriculums to
incorporate Shi'ateachings, labeling anyone who refuses to do so as a Wahhabi, a "crime"
punishable by death in Iran! Add to this that many school principles were initially anti-Salafi, which
resulted with many pupils being suspended, expelled, and beaten for merely raising their hands in
their prayer, or for defending Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, or Abul 'Ala al-Maududi.
However, the double-faced regime was able, through raising the banner of Islamic unity, to fool
many Muslims outside Iran as they ask them to attend their conferences, and transform their way of
thinking within a short period of time. They became false witnesses within their own people,
beguiling them with what they have been taught about the greatness of Islamic unity, without
knowing anything about the plight of Ahlus Sunnah inside Iran. They repeat in all simplicity: "we are
brothers, there is no difference between us." Despite the imprisonment of the scholars and the
demolished Islamic schools, they go to the grave of Khomeini, which has become a worshipped idol,
offering their worship, and placing flowers at this grave. Their stance has misled many young minds
and opened the way for them to accept or tolerate Shi'ism. A person is further baffled when he
realises the superficiality of these people, their oblivion to the reality and their inability to
comprehend the situation. They keep on defending the Rawafidh Shi'ah who are weaving
conspiracy after conspiracy against Ahlus Sunnah.
As you can see, the tragedy of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran is unlike any tragedy in the world, considering
the nature of the race problem, the falsification of news by the Iranian official press, Government
cronies, and the positions of many Muslim movements and activists on the outside who are siding
with Iran. Although Muslim minorities everywhere are facing calamities and catastrophes on a large
scale, the situation in Iran is further exacerbated under the government of Taqiyya (deceit), lies and
hypocrisy, in the name "'unifying' the different sects". Yet it simultaneously slaughters the Sunni
scholars and casts their dissected and mutilated corpses into the streets and the garbage dumps.
Whereas the plight of Muslims is broadcasted internationally, no TV station or newspaper dares to
highlight the case of Sunnis in Iran. Ahlus Sunnah are deprived of their basic civil, social, and
human rights, not to mention the right of political participation and equality with the Shi'ah. The
erection of a Sunni school or mosque in Iran is regarded as an unpardonable crime. Many Sunni
Muslims, who supported such projects (even if it were in the past), were imprisoned, killed, or had
their beard shaved for merely contributing to the building of a mosque or to any simple activity
relating to Ahlus Sunnah. There are also hundreds of periodical prisoners and many killed purely on
suspicion. The following are only some of the names of the prominent scholars who have been
kidnapped, poisoned, or killed:
Bahman Shakoury was amongst the prominent scholars of his area, Tonalis, and was active in
Da'wah within intellectuals. He was arrested and convicted with Wahhabism and executed
in 1986.
Sheikh Mawlawi Abdul Aziz was one of the elite leaders of Ahlus Sunnah who played a
prominent role in opposing the Constitution in matters relating to Ahlus Sunnah rights. He
was the director of the religious school of Zahdan and the chief of Baluchi armed tribes. He
was poisoned in 1987.
Sheikh Abdul Wahhab Khafi played a notable role in exposing the calamities of Ahlus Sunnah
outside Iran, especially in Pakistan. He was killed in 1990 under torture after being accused
with Wahhabism.
Sheikh Nasser Sabhani was one of the leaders of Sunnah in Kurdistan who conducted many
educational courses. He was arrested after refuting the false accusations of kufr directed at
Umar (r.a.a) by Khomeini in his famous book 'al-Hukumah al-Islamiah' (The Islamic
Government). He was killed in 1992 in prison and his relatives were denied from witnessing
his funeral and the prayer.
Dr. Ali Muzhaffaryan was amongst the eminent intellectual Shi'ites who was a cardiac surgeon
and the head of Shiraaz Committee of Physicians. He embraced the school of Ahlus
Sunnah wa al-Jamma'ah and then converted his house to a mosque because the
government of Shiraaz did not permit the establishment of mosques. He was arrested and
convicted with Wahhabism and American treachery and tortured severely when many
Shi'ite youth followed him into Sunnism. He was later released only to be assassinated in
1992.
Moreover, the following are some of Ahlus Sunnah's mosques and Islamic schools that
were destroyed:
Al-Sunnah mosque in Ahwaz. The first Sunni mosque to be confiscated before twar with Iraq. It
was transformed to a security police centre.
Tareeth Ham mosque. This mosque is in the state of Kharasan. It was transformed to a centre
for the revolutionary guard.
School and mosque of Lakour. It is situated near the city of Jabahar in Baluchistan state. The
government demolished the mosque and the school in 1987 under the accusation that it
was a center for Wahhabis.
Al-Sunnah mosque in Shiraz. Confiscated after the murder of Dr. Muzaffar Ban who founded it,
and transformed to a centre for selling video and audio tapes produced by the revolutionary
guard.
Sheikh Faydh mosque. This is an ancient Sunnah mosque in Mashhad, one of the main Shi'ah
centres of the world. The government could not tolerate the continued existence of this
mosque in the city, so it demolished it in 1993, under the supervision of the revolutionary
guard, who also demolished adjoining centres which were used as guest houses and
Qur'an memorisation centres. The demolition orders came from Khameni personally, the
present spiritual leader of Iran. What is amazing is the fact that the demolition of this
mosque occurred immediately after the government- sponsored demonstrations against the
demolition of the Babary Mosque in India by the Hindus.
Ahlus Sunnah School, Talish. The government confiscated the Ahlus Sunnah school at Talish
-North-West of Iran. Sheikh Quraishy, the principal of the school was also arrested and
alleged confessions were obtained from him under torture.
Aaban mosque Mashhad city. They confiscated the land, demolished the walls, and expelled
the trustee.
Repair of roads. They also repair the roads from time to time, eg. in the city of Zahdan, in order
to demolish Sunnah houses, mosques and schools in the name of alleged reconstruction.
As for dealing with the present situation, we are currently only able to offer patience and to take one
blow after another. They are like the orphans - they do not have a government to defend them or to
dare to mention their plight except on special occasions. They do not have a Sunni group outside of
Iran to sponsor them apart from what we initiated a few years ago here (in London).
Do you expect any change in the policies of the present government towards Ahlus
Sunnah after the election of Khatemy?
There is a minor change in the policy of the government towards us. Khatemy is not blood thirsty
and does not like the shedding of blood nor the stealing of our money as did Khameni and
Rafsanjany. Khatemy has changed many of the blood thirsty officials in the Sunni areas with other
Shi'ah who are not as blood thirsty. However, he was not brave enough to appoint one Sunni
official. Had Khatemy taken this opportunity, the tyranny and oppression would be reduced
dramatically, however, I do not think that he intends or is able to bring equality between Sunni and
the others. I have sent an open letter to him in this respect.
What is the policy of Ahlus Sunnah for their future dealings with this situation?
Does the declaration of the Afghan Islamic Emirate have any effect on the internal
situation?
Our policy with this bitter reality is to be patient and abstain from armed conflict. We do not wish to
repeat the experiment in Hama, Halab, Tripoli and others which were very bitter experiments.
Particularly as we know that there is no government, or even an organisation which dares to or
intends to support or sponsor us.
Yes, the existence of a Sunni Muslim government in Afghanistan will have a definite effect on us.
This is why we are witnessing every effort from Iran to halt the establishment of an Islamic
government in Afghanistan. The minister for Iranian foreign affairs declared a number of years
before: "We will never permit the establishment of a Wahhabi government in Afghanistan". In the
view of these devils, any Sunni government is a Wahhabi government. In summary, the existence of
any Sunni government is in our interest. It is notable to bear in mind that the Shi'ah/Safawi State
which existed during the Ottoman rule fell at the hands of the Afghan Sunnis.
Is there a message to other Sunni Muslims throughout the world from their brothers
in Iran?
We see ourselves as creedal and intellectual extensions of our brothers. What we are facing today
is a direct result of our affiliation to the Ahlus Sunnah creed and for no other reason. It is the
responsibility of the Muslims in every organisation as groups and as individuals to be concerned
over their religion and their faith. We know the reason for the backdown of the authorities and the
governments, however, what excuse could there be for the charities, wealthy Muslims, Islamic
organisations, and groups? They do not have an excuse before Allah.
I have hope that our Muslim brothers will not just look at us through the policies of their groups and
parties, but to look at us through Islam as the martyr Sheikh Abdullah Azzam looked at the Afghani
cause.
I also have a parting word for those who share our creed who visit Iran regularly. We hardly fin any
of them any concern towards their religion and the people of their creed. I advise these people to be
conscious of Allah and have some concern for their creed and those who subscribe to the same
creed. Their visits are proof against us and cause us harm and lead to the murder of many of our
members. They are like puppets in the hands of the political regime, they say to us: "Here are your
Imams, your scholars and Sheikhs, they are praying behind us, visiting the grave of the Imam, and
do not ask for a separate mosque for themselves in Tehran, they say we pray all together in one
mosque, so why do you differ with your scholars? You must be Wahhabi!"
Finally we thank Nida'ul Islam magazine for their attention and concern with our plight, we pray for
their success