Shia Under Attack - Part 5

Do the Imams Have Any Authority on the Universe?

The mercenary writers have tried more than one way to insult the followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad. Among these shameful ways is the allegation that the Shi'ite Muslims believe that the Imams from the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad control the atoms of the universe. These writers declare that such a belief is a belief in the divinity of the Imams.

They tried to prove this accusation by another allegation. They accused the revolutionary Islamic leader, Imam Khumayni, of saying in one of his books or lectures that the Imams from the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad control the atoms of the universe.
I have never read such a statement in the books or lectures of Imam Khumayni. However, let us assume that he indeed said this. But let us try to understand his words instead of deliberately trying to misunderstand them.

Did the revolutionary leader mean that the Imams have an independent authority over the atoms of nature separate from the authority of God Almighty? Did he mean that the Imams are able, by their own power, to change the course of nature? Could he not have meant that the Imams are so absolutely obedient to God, and that because of their purity and obedience to Him, He responds to their prayers? Therefore, if they ask Him to change a natural course, their prayers are answered.

There is no doubt that Imam Khumayni does not think that the Imams have power independent from the Almighty. He is too pure and righteous to voice such a thing, write it, or think it. He is one of the most righteous, pure, and obedient to the Almighty.

If Imam Khumayni had said that the Imams can control the atoms of the universe, he undoubtedly meant that the Imams of the House of the Prophet Muhammad had ascended in their obedience and worship to God to such a high degree that they could have asked the Almighty to transform the atoms of one object into the atoms of another, and He would have granted their request. Furthermore, if they had asked Him to revive a dead person, God would have brought him back to life. Is this a belief in the divinity of the Imams?

Those who attribute such a statement to Imam Khumayni and consider it a deviation from the Islamic course should give the matter serious thought. They should test such a statement with the contents of the Holy Qur'an. The Great Book informs us of the miracles of the Prophets of God. And what is that in thy right hand, O Moses? He said: This is my staff. On it, I lean, and with it, I beat branches for my sheep, and in it I find other uses.

"God said: Cast it down, O Moses! He cast it down, and behold! It became a snake, slithering.
God said: Grasp it and fear not. We shall return it to its former state.
"And draw thy hand to your side, it will come forth white without harm. That will be another miracle." (ch. 20. vs. 17-22).

This means that the dead cells which composed the rod of Moses were transformed into living cells. Then those living cells miraculously went back to dead cells. In chapter Al-Shu'ara, we read the following words of the Almighty:

"We revealed to Moses: Strike the sea with thy staff. It parted, and each part was like a huge mountain." (ch. 26, v.64)

Does this not mean that God made the sea obedient to Moses to such a degree that Moses was able to divide the water of the sea into two solid parts, each of them as huge as a mountain in height and size?

The Qur'an Informs Us Of Jesus

In Ali- 'Imran, we read that the Almighty informed us about Jesus:
"And we will make him a messenger to the children of Israel (with this message): I come to you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead by Allah's leave . . ." (ch. 3, v.49)

Here we see that the Almighty enabled Jesus to transform a piece of clay into a living bird that could fly like other birds. Is this the work of Moses or Jesus? Would the Qur'an invite us to deify someone other than God?

The Qur'an Informs Us Of Muhammad

In regard to the Prophet Muhammad, we read God's word in the chapter of The Moon:
"The hour (of judgement) is near, and the moon has been split. But if they see a sign, they turn away and say: This is prolonged magic." (ch. 54, vs. 1-2)

This verse informs us that Allah split the moon in response to His Messenger Muhammad's prayer, and this never happened before the time of Muhammad.

A Tree Walked In Response To The Order Of Muhammad

We find in Nahj al-Balaghah that Imam Ali reported that he was with the Prophet when the chieftains of Quraysh challenged him and asked him to order a nearby tree to uproot and walk to him. They said that this would be visible evidence of his prophethood. The Messenger of God spoke to the tree saying:

"Tree, if you believe in Allah and the Hereafter and know that I am a Messenger of God, uproot and walk until you stand in front of me, with permission of God."

The tree, obeying the Prophet, uprooted and walked to him while making a loud noise like the wings of a flying bird. When the chiefs saw the tree standing in front of the prophet, they asked him to make half the tree come forward and keep the other half in its original place. When he did that, they said: "Let the half that came to you go back to the other half. He did."(Nahj al-Balaghah, part 2, pp.158-9)

Ibn Hisham reported similar to this:

"Rukanah Al-Muttalibi was the strongest man in Mecca. He met the Messenger outside Mecca and the Messenger invited him to Islam. Rukanah said: "If you can prove that you are a true messenger, I will follow you." The Messenger said: "What do you say if I wrestle you down? Will that make you believe that I am a true prophet?" Rukanah said: "Yes." The Prophet wrestled him down twice. Rukanah said: "Muhammad, this is really amazing. Did you really wrestle me?" The Prophet said: "I will show you more amazing things than this if you obey God and follow my way." Rukanah said: What is it? The Prophet said: "I will call this tree which you are looking at, and it will come to me." Rukanah said: Call it, and the Prophet called it. The tree came until it stood in front of him. The Prophet said to it: "Go back to your place," and it went to its original place. (Ibn Hisham, AI-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah, part 1, page 391)

These miracles which occurred in response to prayers of the Messenger of God testify, as documented in the Qur'an, that Allah empowers His great servants to perform miracles by His permission. In other words, He responds to the prayers of His Messengers by creating miracles.
What happened through the prophets does not indicate that they had any touch of divinity. On the contrary, it testifies that those prophets were true servants of God. They ascended to the highest degree of servitude to Him, and that their obedience to Him was absolute. Had they been otherwise, they would not have been able to perform any miracles, and no prayer by them would have been answered. They obeyed God completely and He responded to their prayers.

Are The Imams Like The Prophets?

It may be said that miracles are conceivable when they are attributed to messengers of God. However, the Imams of the Members of the House of the Prophet are not prophets. They were men of knowledge and righteousness, but none of them ascended to the degree of prophethood.
This is true, but the Imams from the House of the Prophet were non-prophets because the prophethood was concluded by the Messenger of God, the Prophet Muhammad. Had the Messenger not been the last of the prophets, it would have been possible for the Imams, or some of them, to be prophets. Probably other people could have become prophets as well.
The evidence of this is that the prophet said to Ali:

"You are to me like Aaron was to Moses except that there shall be no prophets after me." (al-Bukhari, his Sahih, part 5, page 24).

This means that Ali was like Aaron in everything except the prophethood. If any of the Sunnite scholars think that we are exaggerating by saying that Ali and the Imams from his children were qualified for the prophethood if the Messenger had not been the last of the Prophets, they should remember that prominent Sunnite scholars reported similar to this concerning 'Umar. The hadith-recorder Ahmad Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami in his book AI-Sawa'iq AI-Muhriqah, page 96, documents that Imam Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Hakim, and Al-Tabarani reported that 'Uqbah Ibn 'Amir said that the Messenger of God said:

"Had it been possible to have a prophet after me, that prophet would have been 'Umar."
Why should anyone think that it would be an exaggeration to say that Allah would make nature and the atoms of the universe obedient to the Imams of the House of the Prophet Muhammad when we do not consider it an exaggeration to say that 'Umar could have been a prophet if Muhammad had not been the final prophet.

Ibn Hajar, in his Al-Sawa'iq, page 102, reported that when Egypt was conquered by the Muslims, there was a custom to throw a girl in the Nile River on the 11th night of one of the non-Arabic months in order that the Nile would continue to flow. It was believed that without throwing a girl into it, the Nile would not flow. Amr Ibn al-As wrote to the Caliph 'Umar concerning this custom. 'Umar sent a message to the Nile saying:

"If you were flowing before by your own power, we do not want you to run; and if Allah is the one who makes you flow, we ask the Almighty to make you flow."

Amr Ibn al-As threw the letter of 'Umar into the Nile one day before the Christian commemoration of the crucifixion. The following morning they woke up to find the river flowing stronger and had gone up 48 feet in one night.

Shia Under Attack - Part 4

Are The Sunnites Clear Of Exaggeration?

Certainly the Shi'ites are not extremist, and there is no hadith reported by the Shi'ites that may justify such an accusation. However, it would not be improper to ask the following question: Are the Sunnites and their scholars free of exaggeration and extremism concerning the position of some prominent companions of the Prophet?

It would not be out of place to say that the Sunnites are closer to extremism than the Shi'ites. We find in the books of the Sunni scholars and hadith recorders indications that they put 'Umar in a position higher than that of the Messenger of God. The following are some of the hadiths:
"Al-Hakim Al-Nisaburi (in his book AI-Mustadrak,part 3, page 84), reported that Ubayy Ibn Ka'b said the following:

"I heard the Messenger of God saying: The first one the Almighty will embrace on the Day of Judgement is 'Umar. The first one the Lord will shake hands with will be 'Umar, and the first one the Almighty takes by His hand and admits to paradise is 'Umar."

Al-Hafiz Muhammad Ibn Majah in his authenticSunan reported that Ubayy Ibn Ka'b said:
"The Messenger of God said: The first one God will shake hands with (on the Day of Judgement) will be 'Umar. The first one God will greet is 'Umar, and he is the first one Allah takes by His hand and admits to paradise."

These hadiths clearly indicate that 'Umar will be above all the Prophets including the head of the Prophets, Muhammad. When 'Umar is to be the first embraced and his hand shaken by the Almighty, all the prophets will be after him. This is a strange and astonishing hadith. It portrays the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth as a human who embraces people and shakes hands with them.

Al-Hakim also reported that Jabir Ibn Abdullah said that Abu Bakr said that he heard the Messenger say: "The sun never rose on a man better than 'Umar." Al-Hakim said "This hadith is authentic." (AI-Mustadrak, part 3, page 90). If the sun never rose on a man better than 'Umar, it means that 'Umar was not less than any of the Prophets of God including their highest, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah.

It is reported among the virtues of 'Umar that the Messenger of God said: "Whenever Gabriel delayed in his visits to me, I guessed that he was sent to 'Umar." (Ibn Abi Al-Hadid, Vol.6, part 12, page 178). It is also reported that 'Umar is the lamp of the people of paradise. (Ibn Hajar, Al Sawa'iq AI-Muhriqah, page 97).

If the Prophet had been concerned whether Gabriel could have visited 'Umar, 'Umar would have been equal to the Prophet in position and would have been a competitor. Furthermore, how could 'Umar be the light of the people of paradise while the Prophets, including the Messenger of God, are among the people of paradise?

This means that the light of 'Umar is higher than the light of all the prophets. Furthermore, if 'Umar is the light of the people of paradise, and the width of paradise is the Heaven and the Earth, it means that 'Umar's light is the light of the universe. Should that be the case, all the prophets would be in need of his light, and that would mean that 'Umar is above the messengers of God.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I do not mean, through these hadiths, to accuse our Sunnite brothers of placing 'Umar above the Final Messenger of God and the rest of the prophets. This is certainly not my intention; but I wanted to say that what the Sunnites attributed to the Shi'ites, that Ali is above Muhammad, is an unjustifiable and vicious lie because there is nothing in the Shi'ite books that indicates this allegation.

The Shi'ites consider the spread of such a lie a flagrant aggression against the glory of Islam and the honor of the Shi'ites. I wanted to bring to the attention of the readers that the Imamite Shi'ites are too righteous to accuse their Sunnite brothers of placing a man above the Prophet in spite of the fact that there are many hadiths, which are considered by the Sunni scholars to be authentic, indicating that 'Umar is higher than the great Messenger and the messengers who were before him.

Shia Under Attack - Part 3

Do the Shi'ite Muslims Say That the Revelation Came to Muhammad by Mistake, and That it Was Intended for Ali?

This is a vicious lie widely spread in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries in order to discredit the followers of the members of the House of the Prophet. This accusation was made during periods of oppression against the Shi'ites. The rulers of the periods of the Umayyads and Abbasids used to consider every follower of the Members of the House of the Prophet revolutionary and dangerous. They conspired against these Shi'ites and accused them of heresy and disbelief in order to encourage the Muslims to shed their blood and usurp their rights and wealth.

The centuries of oppression passed with all their injustices and terrors. It was expected that during the new period of freedom, the mistakes of the past would be corrected. It was hoped that the Muslim scholars would make a serious study in order to see if there is any justification for such terrible accusations. It is very easy to know the truth.

There are hundreds of books written by Shi'ite scholars about their beliefs. Had the Sunni scholars read any of these books, they would have found that the Shi'ite beliefs are in full agreement with the Book of God and the well-known statements of the Prophet. We are living in the era of speed and easy movement. It is easy for Muslim scholars to have conferences, discuss problems, and find solutions. The simplest principle of justice is to follow the commandments of the Holy Qur'an:

"Oh you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news, try to verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; then you may consequently regret your hasty action" (ch. 49, v.6).

The Almighty commanded us to try to find out whether an accusation is true or false, and that we ought not to try people and convict them without questioning them. We do not know of any court in the world in which the judge convicts a person before interviewing him, provided the accused is available and honors the summons. In spite of the ease with which one can find the correct information nowadays, we find that those who accuse and spread hatred among Muslims do not take one single step in order to find the truth which may unite the Muslim world.

While writing these words, I recollect that the Egyptian government during the fifties sent the late Dr. Muhammad Bisar to Washington, D.C., as director of the Islamic Center there. I went to visit him and he received me kindly and informed me of the knowledge he had acquired concerning American Muslims. He initiated a dialogue between us, saying: "Some of the Muslims in this country asked me about the various Islamic sects. I declared to them that all Muslim sects are good except the Shi'ite Ithna 'ashari." I immediately realized that Dr. Bisar did not know the meaning of the Shi'ite Ithna 'ashari. Otherwise, he would not have been rude enough to say that to me while I am a Shi'ite Ithna 'ashari. Thus, we had the following dialogue:

Chirri: What is wrong with the Ithna 'ashari?
Bisar: They believe in things opposed to Islam.
Chirri: Give us an example of their wrong belief.
Bisar: They say the revelation came to Muhammad by mistake, and that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was supposed to receive the revelation.
Chirri: How did you learn that?
Bisar: I read it in the book of Al-milal wa al-nihalby al-Shahrastani.
Chirri: Have you asked any Shi'ite scholar about this subject?
Bisar: No, I have not.
Chirri: Then you have convicted millions of Muslims and considered them "kafir" without asking any of them about this serious accusation. Did the Almighty command you to do that? And did Egypt send you to propagate such a vicious message?

A year after our meeting in Washington, I met Dr. Bisar in Philadelphia at an Islamic conference. He informed me that he re-examined the book of AI-milal wa al-nihal by al-Shahrastani and found that what was attributed to the Shi'ites, that the revelation came to Muhammad by mistake, was not the belief of the Ithna 'ashari Shi'ite school of thought. It was, rather, a sect which existed and disappeared hundreds of years ago. Hearing that from him, I accepted his apology. Yet, I was amazed that it took him a whole year to re-read the book and discover the truth.

I spent years studying hadith and Islamic history books which were written by Sunni and Ithna 'ashari scholars. I never found in any Shi'ite book a hadith or historical report indicating that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was higher than or equal to Muhammad. As a matter of fact, I found only the opposite. The Shi'ites consider Ali to be the best man after the Messenger because he was the most obedient to him. One of the hadiths which the Shi'ites pride themselves upon is a hadith attributed to the Messenger of God. The Prophet said to the tribe of Wulay'ah: "Bani Wulay'ah, you must change your attitude, or I shall send to you a man who is from me to punish you severely." Some of the people who were present asked the Prophet "Who is the man you are going to send to them?" The Prophet replied: "He is the man who was patching the sole of my shoes." They looked around and found Ali patching the sole of the Prophet's shoes.

It is inconceivable that the Shi'ites can be proud of the fact that Ali was the patcher of the Prophet Muhammad's shoes and claim that the Imam is higher than or equal to the Prophet. Therefore, I do not find any justification for directing such an accusation at the Shi'ites who glorify the Prophet the most. The Shi'ites say that the highest honor the Imam Ali acquired is that he was chosen by the Prophet to be his brother. When the Prophet commanded every two Muslims to become brothers, he held Ali's hand and said "This is my brother." Thus, the Messenger of God, the highest Messenger, the Imam of all righteous people, the one who had no equal among the servants of God, made Ali his brother. (Al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Hisham, part 1, page 505).

Shia Under Attack - Part 2

Do The Shi'ite Muslims Say That The Qur'an Is Incomplete?

The late Egyptian Muslim scholar Muhammad Abu Zahra said in his book al-Imam al-Sadiq that Muhammad bin Ya'qub al-Kulayni (a hadith recorder, died in 329 AH), recorded in his book "Usul al-Kafi" that the Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq said that the Qur'an which was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad contained seven thousand verses, while the verses we read in the Qur'an are only 6262. The rest is treasured by the members of the House of the Prophet ...

Shaykh Abu Zahra issued a harsh judgment against the hadith recorder al-Kulayni while Shaykh Kulayni is unable to defend himself because he met his Lord centuries ago. In spite of Shaykh Abu Zahra's harsh judgment against al-Kulayni, he did not try to accuse all the Shi'ites with what he accused al-Kulayni. Al-Kulayni's report concerning the incompleteness of the Qur'an is unacceptable to the Imamite Shi'ites (who are the overwhelming majority of the Shi'ites). They say that the Qur'an is complete without addition, deletion, or change. Professor Muhammad Abu Zahra in his book Imam al-Sadiq said that al-Safi, a prominent Shi'ite scholar, said in his commentary on the Holy Qur'an the following:

"According to Shaykh Abu Ali al-Tabarsi, another prominent Shi'ite scholar, 'There are no words added to the Qur'an. Any claim of added words is unanimously denied by the Shi'ites. As to the deletion, some Shi'ites and some Sunnis said that there is change or deletion. Our scholars deny that. "

Sayyid al-Murtada, another prominent Shi'ite scholar, said:

"... our certainty of the completeness of the Qur'an is like our certainty of the existence of countries or major events which are self-evident. Motives and reasons for recording and guarding the Holy Qur'an are numerous, because the Qur'an is a miracle of the Prophethood and the source of Islamic knowledge and religious rule. Their concern with the Qur'an made the Muslim scholars highly efficient concerning its grammar, its reading, and its verses. "

With this unequaled concern, there is no possibility the Qur'an was changed or deleted in some parts. The mercenary writers---who only try to divide Muslims as a service to the hypocrite Muslim governments-should be informed of the following:

(1) Al-Kulayni is not an Imam of the Shi'ites. He is only a hadith recorder who reported what was conveyed to him through one or more sources. He did not say that he heard from al-Imam al-Sadiq. He only said that a hadith came to him through some reporters. He did not live during the days of the Imam al-Sadiq. He did not see any of the Imams of the Members of the House of the Prophet.

The Reporters Of The Incompleteness Of The Qur'an From The Sunnis Are Numerous

2) Al-Kulayni was not the only scholar who reported the incompleteness of the Qur'an. There are many hadith recorders, in the books of Sunni scholars, who reported that the Caliph 'Umar, 'A'ishah, and a number of the companions of the Prophet said that the Qur'an is incomplete.

The Sahih Of Al-Bukhari

Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih (authentic), part eight, pages 209-210, that Ibn 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin al-Khattab said in a discourse which he delivered during the last year of his caliphate:

"Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning. We read it and understood it.
"The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, someone may say, 'By God, we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God;' thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed.

"Stoning is in the Book of God. It is the right punishment for a person who commits adultery if the required witnesses are available, or there was pregnancy without marriage or adultery is admitted."

Again, we used to read in the what we found in the Book of God:

"Do not deny the fatherhood of your fathers in contempt because it is disbelief on your part to be ashamed of the fatherhood of your fathers."

Similar reports were recorded by Imam Ahmad in part one of his Musnad (in the Musnad of 'Umar under the caption of the Hadith al-Saqifah, pages 47 and 55). Ibn Hisham recorded similar things in hisSeerah of the Prophet. part 2, page 658 (second printing, 1955).

Sahih (Authentic) Of Muslim

Muslim in the seventh part of his Sahih (commentary of al-Nawawi) in the Book of al-Zakah, about the virtue of being satisfied with whatever God gives and about urging people to have that virtue, pages 139-140, reported that Abu al-Aswad reported that his father said:

" Abu Musa al-Ash'ari invited the Qur'an readers of Basra. Three hundred readers responded to his invitation. He told them: You are the readers and the choice of the people of Basra. Recite the Qur'an and do not neglect it. Otherwise, a long time may elapse and your hearts will be hardened as the hearts of those who came before you were hardened.

" 'We used to read a chapter from the Qur'an similar to Bara'ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from that chapter only the following words:

" 'Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he would seek a third valley, and nothing would fill Ibn Adam's abdomen but the soil.

" 'We used to read a chapter similar to Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only remember out of it the following:

" Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? Thus a testimony will be written on your necks and you will be questioned about it on the Day of Judgment. "

It is obvious that these words which Abu Musa mentioned are not from the Qur'an, nor are they similar to any of the words of God in the Qur'an. It is amazing that Abu Musa claims that two surahs from the Qur'an are missing, one of them similar to Bara'ah (the chapter of Bara'ah contains 130 verses).

A'ishah

Muslim also reported in the Book of al-Rida'ah (Book of Nursing), part 10, page 29, that 'A'ishah said the following:

"There was in what was revealed in the Qur'an that ten times of nursing known with certainty makes the nursing woman a mother of a nursed child. This number of nursings would make the woman 'haram' (forbidden) to the child. The this verse was replaced by 'five known nursings' to make the woman forbidden to the child. The Prophet died while these words were recorded and read in the Qur'an."

Umar Said Chapter 33 Is Incomplete

Al-Muttaqi 'Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book "Mukhtasar Kanz al-'Ummal" printed on the margin of Imam Ahmad's Musnad, part two, page 2, in his hadith about chapter 33, said that Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said:
'Umar said to me 'How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?' I said, '72 or 73 verses.' He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.

Mustadrak Al-Sahihayn

Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi in his book al-Mustadrak in the book of commentary on the Qur'an, part two, page 224, reported that Ubay bin Ka'b (whom the Prophet called the leader of al-Ansar), said that the Messenger of God said to him:

"Certainly the Almighty commanded me to read the Qur'an in front of you, and he read 'The unbelievers from the people of the Book and the pagans will not change their way until they see the evidence. Those who disbelieve among the people of the scripture and idolaters could not change until the clear proof came unto them. A Messenger from Allah, reading purified pages ...'

And of the very excellent part of it "Should Ibn Adam ask for a valley full of wealth and I grant it to him, he would ask for another valley. And if I grant him that, he would ask for a third valley. Nothing would fill the abdomen of Ibn Adam except the soil. God accepts the repentance of anyone who repents. The religion in the eyes of God is the Hanafiyah (Islam) rather than Yahudiyyah (Judaism) or Nasraniyyah (Christianity). Whoever does good, his goodness will not be denied."

Al-Hakim said:

"This is an authentic hadith but the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it. Al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his commentary (on al-Mustadrak)."

Al-Hakim reported also that Ubay Ibn Kabb used to read:

"Those who disbelieved had set up in their hearts the zealotry of the age of ignorance; and if you had had a similar zealotry, the Sacred Mosque would have been corrupted, and God brought down His peace of reassurance upon His Messenger."

When this reading was conveyed to 'Umar, he became very angry with Ubay. He sent for him while he was treating his she-camel with tar. He also invited other companions, including Zayd Ibn Thabit. Ubay came to him. 'Umar asked: "Who among you would read the chapter of al-Fatah (victory)? Zayd Ibn Thabit read the chapter the way we read it now. 'Umar spoke to Ubay angrily. Ubay said 'Shall I speak?' 'Umar said 'Speak out.' Ubay said 'You know that I used to enter the house of the Prophet, and he used to teach me the reading of the Qur'an while you and others were by the door.'"

"If you want me to teach people the way the Prophet taught me, I will teach them; otherwise, I will not teach them one letter ever."

'Umar said to him: "Continue teaching people how to read."
Al-Hakim said this is authentic according to the standards of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim). However, they did not report it.

Al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his Commentary on al-Mustadrak, part two, pages 225-226.

If we take the report of Ibn Mardawayh which Hudhayfah attributed to 'Umar in which he said that the chapter of al-Ahzab, which contained 72 verses, was as long as the chapter of the Cow (which contained 287) and take the report of Abu Musa which says that a chapter equal in length to the chapter of Bara'ah (which contains 130 verses) was deleted from the Qur'an, then the deletion in the Qur'an according to these reports would be about 345 verses.

If this is true, what would be the difference between the deletion according to these reports and the report which is attributed to al-Kulayni that claims a deletion of 600 verses? Furthermore, suppose that al-Kulayni had recorded in his book al-Kafi that some of the Qur'anic verses were deleted. Why should all the Shi'ites be accused of the belief in the incompleteness of the Qur'an? Kulayni is not an Imam of the Shi'ites, and the Shi'ites are not his followers.

Al-Kulayni was no more than a hadith recorder. If a scholar like him makes a mistake, why should we attribute that mistake to the millions of Shi'ites who are not even his followers?
If such an accusation is permissible, why should we not accuse all the Sunnis of the belief in the incompleteness of the Qur'an because they all are followers of 'Umar who was quoted by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Imam Ahmad, and Ibn Mardawayh to have said that the Qur'an was incomplete, and that more than 200 Qur'anic verses were deleted?

Why should the Caliph 'Umar, 'A'ishah, Abu Musa, and Ubay Ibn Ka'b not be accused of the same thing because all of them stated the incompleteness of the Qur'an? Accusing Muslims of Kufr or deviation is abhorable to God. We have been commanded by the Qur'an and the Prophet to consider anyone who declares that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God to be a Muslim. al-Bukhari reported that 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar reported that the Messenger of God said:

"When a person calls his Muslim brother a Kafir, one of the two would carry the sin."
We believe that the Qur'an as it is now is the entire Qur'an without addition, subtraction, or change. It is the Qur'an which no falsehood from the era of pre-revelation or post-revelation entered it. It is a revelation from the Mighty, the Praised.

Allah promised that He will protect the Qur'an. He said "Certainly We revealed the Reminder (the Holy Qur'an), and certainly We shall preserve it." (ch. 15, v. 9)

It is the Qur'an through which the Messenger and the Members of his House commanded us to test the authenticity of every hadith, and accept the hadith which agrees with the Qur'an and reject the hadith that disagrees with it. We believe that whoever says that the Qur'an is incomplete, or was added to, or changed, is completely wrong. What was reported on this subject from Caliph 'Umar, Abu Musa, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, al-Bukhari, Imam Ahmad, Muslim, al-Hakim, and al-Kulayni is completely rejected and absolutely unacceptable.

We certainly reject all of these reports, but we will not pass any judgment on any of the above mentioned reporters. Passing judgment belongs only to Allah. It is hoped that what was offered on this subject is sufficient for those who try to find the truth, that the Shi'ite Muslims are true believers deserving respect from their Sunni brothers. It is unbecoming of those who seek the truth to accuse others of a sin of which they are entirely innocent, especially when the accusers have committed worse than that of which they accuse others.

Finally, I would like to say that al-Kulayni's report concerning the incompleteness of the Qur'an does not indicate that he believed in what he recorded. al-Bukhari, Muslim, Imam Ahmad, and al-Hakim have reported that 'Umar, 'A'ishah, and a number of companions stated that the Qur'an is incomplete. Yet we do not say that these hadith recorders believed in what they recorded.

I am inclined to believe that al-Kulayni did not subscribe to what he reported because he mentioned in his book al-Kafi that all hadiths should be tested by the Book of God (the Qur'an). Whatever agrees with the Qur'an should be accepted, and whatever disagrees with the Qur'an should be rejected.

Al-Kulayni mentioned in his introduction to his book the following:

"Brother, may God lead you to the right road. You ought to know that it is impossible for anyone to distinguish the truth from the untruth when Muslim scholars disagree upon statements attributed to the Imams. There is only one way to separate the true from the untrue reports, through the standard which was declared by the Imam:

"'Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject it.

"'Take what is agreed upon (by scholars). Certainly the universally accepted should not be doubted. '"

These words indicate that al-Kulayni believed that the Book of God is the Qur'an which we read; otherwise, how can we test the various reports through the Book of God? At the same time, these words indicate that the reports which indicated the incompleteness of the Qur'an should be rejected because they are in disagreement with the Book of God, which declares:

"Certainly We (the Almighty) have revealed the Reminder (the Qur'an), and We shall preserve it."

The Imam said:

"Take the agreed upon, for the agreed upon by the Islamic scholars should not be doubted."
And we know that the Book of God is the one on which all the Islamic scholars agree.

Shia Under Attack

Introduction

In the name of the Almighty the Beneficent, the Most Merciful. Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.

The Muslims were never at any time more in need of mutual understanding and unity than they are today. The conspiracies against Islam never were more serious than they are at the present time. Unfortunately, many Muslim governments have taken a very unholy direction, spreading hatred among Muslims. Unsound and erroneous books and pamphlets were, and still are, distributed among the Muslims, telling lies and hurling numerous accusations against the Shi'ite Muslims while the latter were seemingly unaware of those accusations.

During the centuries following the birth of Islam, many accusations were made to disgrace the followers of the members of the House of the Prophet. However, they never took the shape of the serious and malicious campaign that has taken place during the last six years. This false and malicious campaign started after the birth of the Islamic Republic in Iran. It seems that some of the Arab governments found the birth of this Republic a threatening danger. This Republic reminds Muslims of the period of the righteous caliphate and makes a clear distinction between the words and the deeds of the Arab governments who claim to be committed to Islam, yet spend the public wealth to satisfy the low desires of the rulers.

These governments tried to extinguish the light of the Islamic Republic by war, but they did not succeed. Therefore, they are trying to deceive the Muslim population and turn them against the Iranian Muslims by fabricating accusations in a sectarian campaign, aiming to convince the innocent Muslims that the Shi'ites have deviated from the path of Islam. Should such a campaign succeed, unsuspecting and unsophisticated Muslims may find it religiously legal to combat the Shi'ites and shed the blood of the Iranians, who have sacrificed for Islam more than any other people.

The Shi'ites have tried for many years to meet this campaign with silence, closing their eyes and hoping that it would come to an end, and that there would be no need to refute the malicious accusations. It was also hoped that some of the Sunni scholars would try to refute these accusations. There is no doubt that many Sunni scholars are aware of the Islamic doctrines to which the Shi'ites subscribe. Should they be unaware of the Shi'ite doctrines, it would be very easy to become acquainted with them. There are numerous books written by Shi'ite scholars about those doctrines, and those books are available.

It is possible for the Sunni scholars to call for an Islamic conference in which religious differences may be discussed and an appreciation for each other's viewpoint developed. This is what the Qur'an calls for:

"O you who believe, if a transgressor brings to you news, verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; you may consequently regret your hasty action." (ch. 49, v.6)

It is regrettable that the Sunni scholars did not move in this direction and did not try, as far as is known, to refute the untrue accusations which were publicized by the hypocrite campaigners.
Our silence did not stop this campaign. It made it more vehement. Many people thought that our silence is evidence of the truthfulness of the accusations, and that we are unable to answer them.
Thus, it has become necessary to clarify the truth and inform all the Muslims who like to know the truth. In this effort, we shall not accuse the Sunni brothers of disbelief, deviation, or transgression, as some of them have accused the Shi'ites. We shall not place ourselves in such a position, which is improper for any Muslim to take. We obey the Almighty in His prohibition:
"O you who believe, let not a folk ridicule another folk who may be better than they are; nor should women ridicule other women who may be better than them. Neither defame one another nor insult one another by calling names. That is the name of lewdness after faith and whoso turns not in repentance, such are evildoers." (ch. 49, v.11)

It should be pointed out to the reader that those who make these prohibited accusations use a very strange method to indict millions of Muslims whom they do not know, did not see, and with whom they did not speak. They tried and convicted millions of Muslims who lived centuries ago, along with the numerous future Shi'ite generations yet to be born. They have also convicted millions of contemporary Muslims without questioning them and without searching for the truth, which is within easy access to any interested person.

Shi'ism in Malaysia: In the Crosshairs of Regional and Imperial Agendas

In the shadow of the imperialist project against the heart of the Muslim world, the causes of ethnic and sectarian frictions, as well as the mechanisms for their resolution, have been dragged into a wider, more complex political dynamic. Over the past decade, we have witnessed sectarian tensions, in one form or another, encumbering nations and peoples spanning from the westernmost point of the Sahara to the southern tip of continental Eurasia. The extent to which the rise of this phenomenon is an outcome of the imperialist project is entirely overlooked in western analysis. Instead, focus is laid squarely on 'indigenous factors' and so-called 'historical motivations' that are buried somewhere deep in history's endless bosom.

In essence, the sectarian phenomenon is a smokescreen; a myth of sorts, that is amplified and propagated in order to conveniently merge with the political objectives of stakeholders who neither have qualms with 'playing dirty', nor have any moral issues against plastering the '(un/intended) collateral damage' label wherever and whenever possible. [1]

Through its financial backing and institutional propagation of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia (a key US ally) has played a critical role in fomenting sectarian strife. For a sect whose early beginnings are peppered with tales of overwhelming victories that involved the ransacking and desecration of some of the most sacred sites in Islam, it is not hard to grasp the special utility that Wahhabism affords as a medium to provoke inter-sectarian tensions. Indeed, the fashionable practise of takfir (labelling fellow Muslims as infidels) in recent times has its roots in the hostile and exclusionary outlook of the Wahhabi school of thought. [2]

One of the principal manifestations of this trademark hostility is found in the severe condemnations and juridical verdicts issued by Wahhabi scholars against mourning ceremonies for the grandson of the Holy Prophet, Imam Hussain, as well as celebrations held to mark the birth of the Holy Prophet. Whilst there is wide-scale state repression to prevent such gatherings in Saudi Arabia and nearby Gulf states such as Kuwait and the UAE, the level of repression is arguably far worse in countries outside the Middle East where Wahhabism has gained a foothold – as the dominant religious current – either in the national or sub-national contexts. For instance, it has become customary for mourning gatherings and processions in Pakistan to be the target of deadly attacks; particularly in the north-western FATA and NWFP provinces, resulting in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, each year.

In connection, on the night of 15th December last year, security forces from the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS) in Malaysia raided a Shi'ite centre and arrested at least 128 of those in attendance; the gathering was commemorating the martyrdom of the grandson of the Prophet of Islam. Some of those arrested are being held under the infernal Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows for the detention of an individual without trial or criminal charges under the pretext of national security. Other charges include violation of Article 12(c) of the Selangor Syariah Crimes Enactment 1995 which relates to conduct 'that is in contempt of the rightful authorities, or defies, violates or questions an order or directive that ... the mufti has stated or issued through a fatwa.' Rather conveniently, a fatwa issued in Selangor province prohibits being involved in, learning or propagating Shi'ite teachings. In simpler terms, there is to be no place for Shi'ites – as a religious denomination – in Malaysia.

Subsequent to the December raid, the extent of vitriolic abuse against Shi'ites in the national press has often bordered on outright lunacy. Take for instance, the suggestion by Mohamad Rais Rasid, JAIS deputy director for enforcement, to build a detention centre especially for followers of deviant Islamic teachings – in other words, Shi'ites:

"They must not be allowed to share cell rooms with other detainees because we are worried that this group would affect the faith of others ... Let them be confined together among themselves ... If we don't have such detention centres, we will have a dilemma." [3]

Far from being a one-off anomaly, the above mentality is in fact illustrative of the attitude of JAIS towards the country's Shi'ite citizens. On the heels of the December raid, the rector of the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM), Dr. Syed Arabi, signed a memorandum of understanding with his counterpart from the Islamic University of Medina (located in Saudi Arabia) on the need to prevent students from getting involved with Shi'ites; a clear indicator of the pervasive influence of the Saudi Kingdom on the religious infrastructure in Malaysia. [4]

It is interesting to note that US Secretary of State, Ms. Hillary Clinton, was an invited guest at IIUM in early November last year. The rectors of the respective institutions evidently had no problems offering a platform to the secretary of state of an imperial state that is overtly engaged in unjust wars against two fellow Muslim nations, but they regarded it imperative to urgently set-up an MoU to ensure that no students encounter Shi'ite teachings – speaks volumes!

On their part, the demands of Malaysia's Shi'ite population have been very straight-forward. Community leader, Kamil Zuhairi Abdul Aziz, asked: "If other communities like Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs and others have their right to worship and practice under the constitution, then why not us?" [5] In a dire attempt to address the violation of their rights, the country's Shi'ites have made a plea to the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam). Those arrested in the raid are expected to attend a court hearing on January 20. If found guilty, the punishments may range from 'six strokes' to 3 years in prison; those held under the ISA can, in theory, be held indefinitely without charge.

Beneath an ostensible veneer of sectarian motivations for the recent escalations in Selangor, the real issues relate to what are fundamentally the crude political interests of local and regional actors. Within this context, it is easy to overlook the pressing need to overhaul existent legal and constitutional mechanisms in countries such as Malaysia, which generate systemic discrimination on sectarian or other grounds. Lasting reforms cannot be achieved however, in the midst of friction and hostilities.

In conclusion, Saudi Arabia's role as patron of a global network of Wahhabist surrogate institutions on the one hand, and the kingdom's permanent presence within the orbit of US influence on the other, presents formidable challenges for leaders across the Muslim world who are striving for closer ties between various Islamic sects. Furthermore, the phenomenon of rising sectarianism overlaps with the wider imperialist project which is both contingent on, and thrives within, a climate of regional instability and tension. In this regard, bodies such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) must begin to take decisive stances if they indeed seek to 'safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world'.

At another level, governments that acquiesce to the Wahhabist, Saudi project must realise sooner rather than later, that it is impossible to reconcile the promotion of a nation's image on the regional and world scenes as brotherly and democratic, whilst the most basic human rights are not merely trampled upon, but very explicitly abused by functionaries of the state. Additionally, leading figures in such states would do well to observe patterns of correlation between the promotion of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi doctrine and the growth of extremism. In this respect, the disastrous project undertaken by Pakistani General Zia Ul-Haq in the late Seventies and Eighties that has turned political and civil life in the country into an unrelenting nightmare is a case in point.

For seekers of justice, the overriding responsibility at the present time is to stand in solidarity with the oppressed in Malaysia and elsewhere around the world where the imperialist project continues to bring untold suffering to the lives of millions on a daily basis. Organisations such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) have urged the general public to partake in a mass letter-writing campaign aimed at pressuring the Malaysian government to ensure the safety and welfare of all its citizens. [6] As a final word of caution: it is absolutely crucial that religious leaders and the Muslim masses in general, do not resort to a 'sectarian discourse' in reaction to such instances of oppression, because that is the precise end sought by imperial powers and their regional proxies.

Notes:

1. 'The Myth of Sectarianism in the "New Middle East"', Global Research, 27 April 2009
2. Wahhabism: A Critical Essay' (2002) by Professor Hamid Algar, Islamic Publications International
3. 'Jais Moots Special Detention Camp for Deviationists', Malaysiakini, 24 December 2010
4. 'No Shi'ite Islam in IIUM, says rector', The Malaysian Insider, 30 December 2010
5. 'Shiites Demand Rights of Worship in Malaysia', Jakarta Globe, 28 December 2010
6. 'Action Alert: Malaysia – Raid on Ashura gathering', Islamic Human Rights Commission, 17 December 2010

Written by Ali Jawwad (Source)

Ayatollah Taskhiri: Ashura Raid Against Shia Muslims in Malaysia "Shocking"

Head of the World Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought, Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Taskhiri, condemned the attack on Ashura mourners in Malaysia and warned against the differences. Following the recent raid by security forces on an Ashura commemoration in the Selangor state of Malaysia, leading scholar Ayatollah Taskhiri asked religious leaders and top figures of the country, in a letter, to prevent the detained scholars to be tried on alleged accusations.

In this letter addressed to Malaysian top figures including head of Jamiat Ulama and head of Muslim Unity community, the senior scholar said: "What happened on the eve of Ashura was quite shocking to us all." He also added: "On the pretext of the fatwa of Sheykh Al-Monadi, the religious official of Selangor - who accuses the Shia for having misguided beliefs - police forces attacked the mourning ceremony of Imam Hussein."

Ayatollah Taskhiri also asked religious figures not to let religious differences lead to accusations against each other of excommunication (takfir), religious innovation and thus result in greater divisions among Muslims. During the mourning ceremony of Imam Hussein (a) in Hauzah ar Radah in the state of Selangor, security forces raided the mourners arresting 200 mourners among them the local scholar as well as the visiting schoar from Iran. The two scholars have been released on bail and will appear at a hearing to be held on January 20th.

---
Source: ABNA