What is the cause of these arguments? Why are there disagreements over the story of “Fadak” among Shiite scholars? About the story of what happened behind the door of Hazrat Zahra’s doorstep, some believe it did not have any doors or other things …
Beware that about attacking Hazrat Zahra’s house and breaking into the house and taking Imam Ali (AS) forcefully to the mosque, there is no argument and disagreement. There are few, or even no, historical events that we have the same idea about like this. Even about story of “Ashura” there are some disagreements. That is because at that time, there were no people specialized in historical studies and, therefore, some of the events of that era were written during Bani Umayye Dynasty and as the result they were written in favor of Bani Umayye rulers. During Bani Umayye, they let some hired, illiterate people to write historical events. It can be clearly seen that in two famous history books of that period, Tarikh Tabari and Tarikh Ibne Athir, benefits of Bani Umayye were followed. There are some interesting matters from Bani Umayye rulers in these books. For example, in the book Al Aqaani, it reads:
Khalid Ibne Abdullah ordered the history writers who could write to write about history. One of them met Khalid and said “When I want to write about history, there are many issues about Ali Ibne Abi Talib and his virtues. What should I do with that?” He replies “Write nothing about Ali, except it says that Ali will go to the hell”.
It means write whatever to criticize and blame Ali (AS) and remove all those which talk about his virtues. These events caused removal of many things and we are not now informed about them. On the other hand, after some time, Shiites have quoted some things. That was because Shiites had no facilities and equipments at that time and they were under pressure. Even Ibne Abi Al Hadid Mutazeli says:
They would find Shiites of Ali Ibne Abi Talib from here and there to torture them. They would occupy their houses and possess their assets. It was better for a person to call him ‘pagan’ rather than being called ‘Shiite of Ali Ibne Abi Talib’.
These events caused this problem along with some other matter. For instance, the first Khalifa ordered banning of quoting hadith from the Holy Prophet and the second Khalifa used to beat those who quote hadiths and would arrest them and he even whipped Abu Harira and put Abu Durda and Ibne Maktum under jail. They fear that words about Imam Ali (AS) and how they occupied the throne reach people’s ears and causes weakness of their rule. During 4th and 5th centuries, there was a politically open situation. It was a bit long time span after that when Alawi governments, such as Ale Buya, came to power. We experienced such situation in our own Revolution (the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979). In such revolutionary atmosphere, much have been lost and forgotten. Therefore, there are so much disagreement in quoting historical events.
Although the Holy Prophet had other daughters, why mentioned virtues are just about Hazrat Fateme Zahra (AS) and the Sura Al-Kawthar was sent about her?
Such questions have been raised earlier. Since Hazrat Fateme was meant to be mother to eleven Imams, so a person who wants to be source of eleven lights, she must have a very special position and not every woman could have such position.
Of course, “Grace is (entirely) in His Hand, to bestow it on whomsoever He wills”
Well, why then among so many children of Abu Talib (who had 12 children) only Imam Ali (AS) had so much virtue? Why from among so many Arabs, Prophet Muhammad was selected as messenger of Allah? Only God knows. We should accept what he desires and wills. On the other hand, it must be someone worthy of being Imam Ali’s wife in her personality and she must had been someone who could be proof of Khilafat of Imam Ali (AS) and evidence of religious reality of him and the Holy Prophet. She must have been someone who could reject those who falsely claimed succession of the Holy Prophet. If you follow the line of Hazrat Zahra’s life, so many problems will be solved. You say whatever you want, except for the story of Hazrat Zahra (AS). What does it show?
A student who had recently converted to Shiite said “I studied about arguments between Hazrat Zahra (AS) and the Khalifas and had a dilemma to choose whether Hazrat Zahra (AS) or the Khalifas. I studied Hazrat Zahra’s life carefully and detailed. I could not find any failure or mistake in it. Then I studied lives of the Khalifas. I saw so many failures and mistakes in different eras; before Islam, after Islam, and after their coming to power. I found it unjust to leave Fateme Zahra and stick to the others”. Even in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, it is said:
Fateme is like a limb of mine; who ever annoys her, it is like he has annoyed me.
Fateme is like a limb of mine; who ever bothers her, it is like he has bothered me.
Fateme was angry with Abubakr and she never spoke to him until the end of her life.
These are miracles of Hazrat Zahra (AS). Though many studies have been done in the mentioned books and some others, this hadith had never been studied by them. Ibne Qatibe says:
I swear to Allah; I curse you after each of my salats.
It is something proved that Hazrat Fateme Zahra (AS) was angry with the two. Bothering her is like bothering the Holy Prophet. The holy Quran says:
“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment”.
Allama Amini says:
You Sunnis repeatedly quote “Anyone who dies without (knowing him) Imam, he has died like an ignorant (Arabs who lived before rise of Islam)”.
You can whether say this revayat is false and the Holy Prophet had not ever say that, which we cannot accept it because it has been repeated in different sources with accurate reference. Or could say that the Holy Prophet said this and Abubakr was Imam, but Hazrat Fateme Zahra (AS) died without (knowing her) Imam and neglected what her father said and (we seek refuge to Allah) she would go to the hell. Can you claim this? Your revayats say:
Fateme is superior to all women in the Paradise.
There is another possibility and it is Hazrat Fateme Zahra did not accept Abubakr as her Imam and considered him as usurper. That is why she did not pay homage to Abubakr. The person to whom Hazrat Zahra (AS), the sole remaining person of the Holy Prophet’s own blood, did not pay homage might not be worthy of his succession and leadership of the society and if he was, Hazrat Fateme (AS) would rush for that.
Allama Amini went to Al Azhar University in Egypt and raised this issue and no one could give an answer. That is the person who is evidence of truthfulness and supremacy of the Holy Prophet. That is why a Sunni and Wahabi young man refers to her as the evidence of truth and gets aware after thousands of years. That is how he gains a high position. If there was a tiny problem in Hazrat Zahra’s life, she could never be evidence of legitimacy of the Holy Prophet.
Some days after death of the Holy Prophet, some people broke through the house of Hazrat Zahra (AS) and forcefully entered the house and Imam Ali (AS) paid homage to the Khalifa. From the other side, Imam Ali (AS) never paid homage to Abubake since Hazrat Fateme (AS) was alive. Was that homage voluntary?
First we should see what homage means. Homage is a pact between a citizen and the king to follow his commands and orders. It is mentioned in history that if a person pays homage to someone, he should follow his orders, programs, and plans in the society. In the meaning of homage, there must be sense of will and desire and if it is by force and unwillingness, that is not homage anymore. Homage is a transaction and it has two sides; you sell and the other one buys. If someone sells your good to another person and get the money from him by force, that is not a transaction anymore. A transaction has two sides. That is the same about homage.
Imam Ali’s Homage to the Khalifas According to Shiites:
About Imam Ali’s homage to Abubakr, we do not even have one revayat, though it is weak, which show Imam Ali (AS) paid homage to Abubakr. Sheikh Mufid says:
What Shiite scholars believe is that Imam Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) did not pay homage to Abubakr, Omar, or Othman even as short as a blink of an eye.
Imam Ali’s Homage to the Khalifas According to Sunnis:
In a revayat which is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, it is said:
Since Fateme was alive, that was six months after death of the Holy Prophet, Ali paid homage to no one and when they wanted Ali to do so, he sent word to Abubakr to go to Ali’s house. He said that Abubakr does not take Omar with him since he did not like to see Omar. When abubakr came, Ali said “You were brutal toward us”.
When Hazrat Fateme (AS) was alive, people paid attention to Ali (AS) and would listen to him, but when she died, people did not pay much attention to Imam Ali (AS).
Imam Ali (AS) was Imam; whether people like it or not or they pay homage to him or not. Imam has duties such as safekeeping the Sharia (that is Islamic rules), preaching the Sharia, Being cause of mercy (of God) among people, and raising justice. If Imam has an obstacle in doing one of his duties, it does not mean he can forget about the others. From among these duties, they made barriers for him to raise justice. They did not let him to be Khalifa in the society. So Imam Ali (AS) could not help people with that when he was not in power. But there was no limitation in being cause of mercy (of God) among people. So, if sometimes Imam would appear in executive or judiciary levels and advised the Khalifas or took part in courts as judge, it does not mean he took part in controlling society and he cooperated with the system. Imam was just doing what his duty was. It was preaching and safekeeping the Sharia. It was for this purpose that he joined courts and advised the Khalifas. After martyrdom of Hazrat Zahra (AS), he had this chance to perform divine rules and expand them. So, he, apparently, helped the government in favor of doing his own duty.
There is another revayat which says they attacked Fateme’s house three times. In the third attack, they dragged Ali (AS). In Nahj Al Balaqa it is said they took him like a camel whose hands, legs, and mouth are tied up. In Al Imama wa Al Siyasa of Ibne Qatiba Dinwari and Murawwij Al Zahab of Masoudi it is written:
When they took Ali (AS) to the mosque, they could not take Ali’s homage for Abubakr. They were not (physically) able to do it. So, when they saw they are unable of doing so, Abubakr touched Ali’s hand while Ali’s hands were bound.
If this is paying homage, then yes! Ali paid homage to Abubake! But where in the whole world is it customary that a king touches hand of his people and then claims that his people paid homage to him and not the king?! This is what is written in Sunni books. We said that there is not even a weak revayat (meaning with weak reference) in Shiite books that Imam Ali (AS) paid homage to Abubakr. Such occurrence happened just three days after the Holy Prophet’s death. Of course, I could not find a reliable and accurate revayat that says they put a rope around Imam Ali’s neck, but in some books it is mentioned that they used his own clothing to pull him with. So, there was no true and acceptable homage. And Sunnis have quoted two stories as homage; one factitious and another one through which Imam Ali (AS) dissociated the first and second Khalifas.
Why didn’t companions of the Holy Prophet come to Imam Ali’s help when he and his house were attacked?
We should see what important things happened in early days after death of the Holy Prophet, which were Monday and Tuesday. They were all gathered in the house of the Holy Prophet and were washing his body. Suddenly they were informed that some of Companions (those who were from Medina) have gathered in Saqifa Bani Saida (a council) to appoint successor of the Holy Prophet. Abubakr, Omar, and Abu Ubaide Jarrah rushed to the council. Here we are not going to discuss what happened in the council, but Ibne Abi Al Hadid, who is Sunni, says:
When they got out of the council, some rascals were around Abubakr and Omar and forced people to pay homage to Abubakr willingly or with obligation. They had military uniforms and dressed in combat dress.
Sheikh Mufid, who is approved by Sunnis, says:
They all had sticks with them (that means they would beat people with sticks).
In Tarikh Tabari, it is made clearer:
When Omar saw that the tribe of Aslam is entering Medina, he told them “I would pay you as much as you want. Just come help us and force people to pay homage to Abubakr”.
He even says:
Anyone who refused to do so, you might beat him in head and neck.
This Khilafat was with support of some brutal rascals. On the other side, it is said:
When they came near the mosque, they saw that all tribes were ally to Abubakr and Omar and they are waiting.
The body of the Holy Prophet was not buried yet and people would come and say salat and go away. Meanwhile, Ibne Abbas, Abuzar, Salman, Miqdad, and Abu Sufyan complained about this situation to Abubakr and Omar. They, in returned, beat the critics. In such situation, all critics were silent. Some joined Imam Ali (AS), but they were too few to stand against the other party, so they observed that they could not achieve victory. Imam Ali (AS) says in Nahj Al Balaqa:
I saw no companions but my family members. I feared if I go to them with my family members, the bloodline of the Holy Prophet would be cut forever. As the result, I waited …
This question was asked from Imam Ali (AS) several times after his Khilafat. Even Ashas Ibne Qais complained:
After your selection as Khalifa, whenever you give a speech to people you claim you were obsessed after death of the Holy Prophet. Where was this sword that now you raise against Talhe, Zubair, Muawiya, and the Khawarij at that time?
Imam Ali (AS) replied:
I swear to Allah! If just 40 people would help me, I would raise sword for my right. They promised to help me, but none, except for a minority, came to me when the time came. So I was alone and as the Holy Prophet told me “If you had some people with you fight against them, otherwise sheath your sword and wait”.
So Companions (from Medina) were afraid due to the social atmosphere in the society and did not defend Imam Ali (AS).
God bless all of us
Dr. Seyyed Muhammad Husseini Qazvini
Answering Doubts about Imamat and Khilafat; Part 2
If people gathered in the council (of Saqifa) and selected Abubakr as Khalifa, can we claim all people were stupid and unaware? Could you explain it?
This question was raised from the very beginning that how come people forgot about Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) and turned to Abubakr and chose him while it was not long after the incidence of Qadir and its famous hadith, which happened less than two months before that, and the Holy Prophet, repeatedly, emphasized on the issue of his succession?
This is one of the oldest and most ambiguous doubts which has been raised in different forms and ways.
The root and base of this doubt is that Sunnis say when the companions of the Holy Prophet went to Abubakr and chose him as the Khalifa, we cannot claim that all of them were wrong. We have so many verses and revayats about their virtues. Is it plausible that all of them make a mistake? Is it acceptable to say that all of them acted against will and desire of the Holy Prophet? Did all those people who went to Abubakr make a mistake?
There are some issues in this regard that should be analyzed here:
The first Issue:
What happened in Saqifa (the council) in which Abubakr was selected as Khalifa? There are few who could answer this question and solve this riddle. What is proved and it is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is that Abubakr, Omra, and Abu Ubaida Jarrah were at the Holy Prophet’s house and were busy washing the prophet’s holy body and the council was held by Ansar (companions from Medina) and not by the Muhajerin (companions who migrated with the Holy Prophet from Mecca to Medina). Ansar wanted to choose Sad Ibne Ibade Ansari as the Khalifa with several intentions. Ansar were loyal companions and did really good services for Islam and many of successes of Islam and its progress was the result of their help and companionship. During the years of his life, the Holy Prophet more relied on Ansar than Mujahedin. What happened that they decided to hold a council; that is a different topic. Abubakr and Omar were informed of holding of the council by Ansar and decided to choose the Khalifa. So they left for the council and joined the group. This is what is written in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and quoted from Omar. They deceived Ansar and used the conflict which occurred in there. Sad Ibne Ibade was under ground and he was about to die because of the pressure of the mob. Omar was said “Sad is dying”. He replied “God killed Sad since he was hypocrite”. Sad’s son told Omar “If my father gets hurt, I will kill you”. Some things like this happened and they are recorded in history. They understood the situation is tense and Omar said to Abubakr “Bring forth your hand and I will pay homage to you”. So, Omar and Abu Ubaida Jarrah paid homage to Abubakr and that was the end. Tribes of Ows and Khazraj, due to the rivalry over this issue, also paid homage to Abubakr. Then we could say that in fact the homage was paid by only two: Omar and Abu Ubaida Jarrah. In some Sunni sources such as Tafsir Qartabi, Taftazani, Eiji, Tabari, and Ibne Kathir it is mentioned that only two or three people paid homage to Abubakr. Then they forced people, by threatening and beating them, to pay homage to Abubakr. In Ibne Abi Al Hadid’s Sharh Nahj Al Balaqa it is quoted from Bara Ibne Azib who said
We were washing the Holy Prophet’s body. We went out and saw Abubakr, Omar, Abu Ubaide Jarrah, and some others, who were like militias and had military uniform on, were moving on and forcing people to pay homage to Abubakr. Anyone who annoyed would be beat.
When the tribe of Aslam came and Omar saw them, he said
ما هو إلا أن رأيت أسلم فأيقنت بالنصر.
Most of people disagreed with what was going on and many of Ansar who paid homage, were not satisfied with their own action and even some of them said “
We pay homage to none but Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS).
Imam Ali (AS) came with Salman, Abuzar, and Miqdad. They argued about what was going on. Then Hazrat Zahra came and gave a fine lecture. This is what happened.
According to this story, they assigned Abubakr as Khalifa by force and threat and even in Sahih Bukahri and some other sources, it is quoted from Abubakr:
I swear to Allah! Paying homage to Abubakr was something incidental. (Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 8, p 25)
Here we ask a question and ask our Sunni brothers to think about that. We do not ask for a quick reply, but I want them to think and then reply our question:
You say that the Holy Prophet did not assign a successor. OK, we accept what you say! The Holy Prophet thought that people are wise and they can choose their khalifa, themselves. That is why he left this matter to people and then people came and chose Abubakr as their Khalifa. It is also mentioned in the holy Quran
“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)”
So the manner of the Holy Prophet must be a model of behavior for all. Do people’s attitudes and manners improve or no? Surely yes, it develops. So, why then Abubakr did not leave selection of the second khalifa to people? Why did he assign Omar as his successor and Khalifa of people after himself? This happened while, according to Sunni sources, Muhajerin, Ansar, Imam Ali (AS), Talhe, and Zubair complained to Abubakr about this action and said
You selected someone who is impatient as our khalifa! How will you explain it to Allah when you meet Him?
This is something absolute in history. In some sources it is mentioned that people complained about this. In those sources the word “people” is mentioned. But Abubakr said “I decided Omar be Khalifa after me; whether people want it or no”. If you really respect people and think they are wise, why didn’t you then let them choose their own khalifa? Omar also appointed a council for choosing his successor. One of Sunni scholars wrote in his book that Omar, too, assigned a number of people to choose his successor. This council consisted of six people. One of their scholars said he wanted to act democratically. We imagine this is true. But the question here is “what is democracy?” Is it that a number of old and famous people, who are thought to be wise and able to recognize the best for the society, consult each other and choose one of them? If this is democracy, when then Omar said
Keep these six inside a building. If they did not choose one as khalifa after three days, kill them all. If four had one opinion and two had another, so kill the two. And if three of them had one idea and the other three had another idea, so you listen to what Abdullah, my son, says and decides.
What kind of democracy is it that these people do not have the right of decision? If they say that they do not agree, they must be killed! This is democracy!
Omar was asked earlier “What don’t you choose your son as Khalifa?” He replied “He cannot even divorce his wife”.
How can such man, who cannot even divorce his wife, be فصل الخطاب of six other people who did not come to an agreement in such important matter? These are the question which should be thought of and replied.
You claim that the companions of the Holy Prophet are so excellent and, according to guidelines of the Holy Prophet, they had turned into angles and even they had higher position compared to that of Gabriel. This is a kind of diversion and hiding the truth of the holy Quran and the tradition. Here are some examples of deeds of the companions:
1- In Sahih Muslim, it is written:
After the war of Hunain, the Holy Prophet distributed the trophies and some of the companions complained that the Holy Prophet had not acted justly and said “You, Muhammad! Be just”.
It is very rude and bad to tell the prophet to act justly and call him unjust. Nuwi, in analysis of this revayat, writes:
Punishment of such a word is death.
As the second Khalifa said “The Messenger of Allah! Let me kill this hypocrite”.
The Holy Prophet replied “I seek refuge to Allah! Then our enemies would say that Muhammad kills his companions”.
2- Didn’t Muslims lose the war of Ohod for any reason but annoyance of companions? The Holy Prophet ordered them not to abandon their posts under any circumstances, whether they have won the war or they have defeated. But, as soon as they saw trophies and thought the enemy is defeated, they left their posts and the enemy attacked there and the army of Muslims was defeated.
3- The Holy Prophet was saying salat with his companions in Medina when a group of merchants were passing by and started selling their goods. Those who were listening to the prophet’s speech got out of the mosque and went after purchasing goods. They left the prophet who was standing and was speaking to people. It is also mentioned in the holy Quran:
But when they see some bargain or some amusement, they disperse headlong to it, and leave thee standing. Say: ‘The (blessing) from the Presence of Allah is better than any amusement or bargain! And Allah is the Best to provide (for all needs).”
Do you mean to follow these companions? Is whatever they do true?
4- Didn’t the second Khalifa say during the peace treaty of Hudaibiya:
و الله! ما شككت منذ أسلمت إلا يومئذ.
5- In the last hajj of the Holy Prophet, he said to his companions “Stop Ihram (a religious status during hajj)”. Some of companions did not listen to him and said that they will not do it. The Holy Prophet was very angry. Aisha said “How made you angry? May God put that person in the hell”. The Holy Prophet said “how can I not be angry? I order to people and they do not obey me”.
6- In the last moments of his sacred life, the Holy Prophet ordered:
إئتوني بكتاب أكتب لكم كتابا لا تضلوا بعدي.
إن النبيk غلبه الوجع و عندنا كتاب الله حسبنا.
There are several other stories like that where companions made mistakes during history. This shows that there had been good people among companions of the Holy Prophet, but it does not mean all of them were good people. That is why Imam Ali (AS) did not pay homage until six months and Bani Hashim never paid homage. Ibne Hazm, a Sunni scholar, says “May God curse that agreement in which Ali Ibne Abi Talib is not included”.
About Imam Ali (AS), it is quoted from the Holy Prophet that he said
على مع الحق و الحق مع علي يدور معه حيثما دار.
Here, I mention some revayats which shows that they wanted to deceive Imam Ali (AS) and wanted to turn to someone else. It began during lifetime of the Holy Prophet. Abu Rih, a famous Egyptian scholar, says “Those who think that succession of Abubakr was decided in the council of Saqifa and it was decided during some hours must be wrong. The primary steps were taken during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. The output of the council was the final step of what they have begun earlier”. He continues “The leaders of this plot were Abubakr, Omar, Abu Ubaida Ibne Jarrah, Aisha, and Hafse”.
The Holy Prophet said to Ali (AS) “These people have hatred of you in their hearts. They will show you that after my death”.
There is a revayat from Hakim Neishabouri and he considered it as accurate. Imam Ali (AS) said “From among wills of the Holy Prophet to me was that he said ‘My people will betray you and deceive you after me’”.
God tested companions on those days and he is testing us now. He is observing whether our ears and eyes are open to the truth or not. Even if all people on the earth turn pagan, that does not affect the sacred and divine throne of God. On the other hand, if all people on the earth turn faithful and believer of Allah, it has no benefit for Allah, the Almighty.
If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves.
Was the sentence “I testify that Ali (AS) is God’s friend” a part of Adhan from the beginning or it was added later?
We have a number of revayats in this regard. In the book Al Silafa Fi Amr Al Khilafa by Maraqi Misri, we read:
A man went to the Holy Prophet and said “Abuzar added ‘I testify that Ali (AS) is God’s friend’ in his Adhan”. The Holy Prophet replied “That is true. Have you forgotten what I said on the day of Qadir which I said ‘Whoever I am his master, so now Ali is his master’”.
Also on the next page, it is written:
A man went to the Holy Prophet and said “I heard something that I haven’t heard it before”. The Holy Prophet said “What was it that you heard?” That man said “I heard Salman testified to Welayat of Ali (AS) after testifying of Risalat”. The Holy Prophet replied “You heard a really good thing”.
These two are what I have seen in Sunni sources. Whether their reference is accurate or no, we are not going to discuss it here. Allah, the Almighty, says:
“Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship)”.
All Sunni scholars have agreed and admitted that the one who paid charity while he was praying was Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS). The holy Quran says that Ali is ولی of Allah. If in my adhan, I testify to Welayat (friendship to Allah) of Ali Ibne Abi Talib, I am following what the holy Quran says. It is not something outside of Quran. But the point here is that could we add some parts to adhan which is a type of prayer?
Here we have two matters:
1- Was the phrase “Truly Salat is better than sleeping” a part of adhan at the time of the Holy Prophet? If not, why then the second Khalifa added that to adhan? Well, you added that and Shiites added “I testify that Ali (AS) is friend of Allah”.
2- You consider the phrase “Truly Salat is better than sleeping” as part of adhan, but Shiite leaders all agree that if a person says “I testify to Welayat (friendship to Allah) of Ali Ibne Abi Talib” in his salat, he has committed sin. He just can say that as a prayer and not as a part of adhan.
Also, we can see throughout history one of Abbasid kings added his name to adhan. This is what has been recorded in history and not something new.
Disagreement among Sunni and Shiite scholars and leaders seems natural. But why are there disagreements among Shiite leaders? For example, Shiite leaders and scholars do not have the same opinion about attacking Hazrat Zahra’s house and slapping her in the face.
This matter refers to different interpretations of verses and revayats. That is because there is no limitation for a Mujtahid in analyzing and interpreting a verse or revayat. Someone may consider a revayat as true and reliable and, as a result, act according to that and another person may not think of the same revayat as true and so he does not act according to that. For instance, Sahl Ibne Ziyad is a narrator who had quoted several revayats. Some of our Faqihs (religious scholars) think of him as reliable and some think otherwise. Those who do not think of him as reliable do not trust in his hadiths and reject him and those who think of him as reliable, act according to him. Scholars have disagreement in minor details and not in basics and general facts.
But about story of Hazrat Zahra; we know that after death of the Holy Prophet, according to the first Khalifa’s order, no hadiths were written from the Holy Prophet. Even Mother of Believers, Aisha, says:
My father, Abubakr, collected about 500 of hadiths from the Holy Prophet. He went to bed and was nervous. I asked him “Do you have any problems? Have you heard bad news?” He did not answer. When we woke up in the morning, he told me “Go and bring me those revayats which are with you”. I went and took them and my father set a fire and burned them.
After Abubakr, Omar, too, ordered no one has the right to write hadiths from the Holy Prophet. So was the same about Othman and Bani Umayye kings. It went on until the time of Omar Ibne Abdul Aziz who ordered writing of hadiths. In history, we can see that Omar Ibne Abdul Aziz’s command was not performed. No one wrote hadiths until the year 120 after hijrat when Shahab Al Din Zahri and some others wrote hadiths. In this gap, many of facts, revayats, and stories went under the ground by death of the prophet’s companions. Some who wrote, acted according to will of Bani Umayya and wrote what they wanted them to write, not what really happened in the past.
Abu Al Faraj Isfahani wrote in Al Aqani:
One of Bani Umayya rulers ordered a historian to write about historical events. That person went to Khalifa and said “Sometimes in history there are some words which praise Ali Ibne Abi Talib(AS). Shall I write about his virtues?” That Khalifa said “Do not write anything about Ali unless it is about his wickedness and says that he will go to hell”.
It is quoted from Mother of Believers, Aisha, that the Holy Prophet said
“You, Aisha, if you like to see two people who will go to the hell, behold who enters this door”. And then I saw Abbas and Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) entered.
So many facts were not ever written and just some of them were mentioned. Many of books were ruined in fire. The library of a great Sunni scholar in Bagdad was burned and about 18000 books were burned and ruined. That is the cause of disagreement.
I ask you a question. When exactly did Omar Ibne Khattab die? Ibne Hajar, in his Al Isaba, quotes seven different dates for that incidence. There is much disagreement among Sunnis about that. There are several numbers for Othman’s age at the time of his death; 81, 82, 86, and 90. Khalifa is not an ordinary person whose information and details of life were unknown. This is the disagreement that history has caused. That is because facts were not written in historical books as they must have been written.
What is the necessity of posing such matters, such as differences between Sunnism and Shiism, in this era? Quoting such issues causes this discord. What is the benefit in that?
One of the biggest miseries and problems of Muslims in this period of time is their division into different groups and sects; not only their division into Sunni and Shiite, but even division among Sunnis. Even Ahmad Ibne Hanbal says:
Anyone who believes that the holy Quran is a product (of man), he is pagan and will go to hell.
About 90 per cent of Sunnis believe in this matter. In Bagdad in third and fourth centuries, there were much arguments and disagreements between Hanafis and Hanbalis. In Gilan in fourth and fifth centuries, there were serious arguments between Hanafis and Hanbalis. Even some of Hanafi scholars issued a fatwa which said that Hanbalis should pay jaziya (the money that people of minorities should pay to the government for living in their society). From the other side, Hanbalis believed that Hanafis should pay jaziya since they are like Jews and Christians. These differences have been recorded in history. Look at such arguments among the 1.5 billion population of all Muslims in the world. As Imam Khomeini said:
If Muslims of the world were united, they were unified, and stop enmity, in that situation, if each Muslim pours one cup of water n the ground, it would result in such a great flood that will wipe off Israel from the earth.
The Holy Prophet says:
My people will divide into 73 sects. All of them are in fire (which means they are void) except for one.
We are looking forward to knowing this one sect. When it is found, all of us should unite under that umbrella. Didn’t the Holy Prophet who said all of them are void except one of them address that one sect? Didn’t he give us any clues? We believe that he has left us some signs. In hadith of Safine (ship) says
My Ahle Bait is like ship of Prophet Noah. Anyone who got on the ship survived and anyone who does not will sink.
The Holy Prophet said
إني تارك فيكم الثقلين: كتاب الله و عترتي، إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا.
By these discussions and dialogues, we want to gather all people under banner of Quran and Ahle Bait and unite all Muslims against our serious enemy.
One of leaders of Jihad in Palestine said:
We came to this conclusion that if today Jews are attacking us, that is because of our fathers’ indifference toward Islam. A long time ago, Fateme Zahra (AS) was beaten in the alley and our fathers did not defend her. We are now paying for that. If that day our fathers would defend her, today we did not have to pay such bitter expense for that.
If in these dialogues, either of the sides insults and disrespects the other one, we condemn that. We have repeatedly said that insulting Khalifas and Sunnis is betrayal toward Shiites and that is a great sin. That is the same if a Sunni wants to act in this way toward Shiites.
God blesses all of us
Dr. Seyyed Muhammad Husseini Qazvini
Answering the Doubt: Differentiation between Imamat and Khilafat
Master Husseini Qazvini
In previous sessions, we argued about the doubt which is posed and says that Imamat is different from Khilafat. Also it is said that Khilafat is of two tupes: great (long term) Khilafat and minor (short term) Khilafat which is selective. We said that some people such as Bi Azar Shirazi, Allama Simnani, Shariati, and Waiz Zade Khorasani have mentioned it in their books and claimed that Imamat is different from Khilafat. We studied effect of such ideas in areas out of Shiism and we found out that such ideas result in putting Shiism under question. That is because according to Shiite thought, Imamat follows Nabowwat (state of being prophet) and separating Imamat from Khilafat is an unforgivable sin. Many famous scholars such as Shahid Mutahhari emphasized over this unity. Here is what he said:
As at the time of the prophet, the matter of Imamat and Khilafat and governing is upon the prophet and in his presence, no one has the right to claim the above mentioned positions, so at the time of Imam, who is prophet’s successor, no one has the right of khilafat and government.
We were supposed to study ideas of Faqihs and famous religious scholars and leaders in this regard. In the last session someone said it is what Avicenna believed and and Shahid Mutahhari was influenced by his idea. These are painful doubts. Someone may enter such areas that he could be able to answer such questions in the hereafter.
Here is a list of scholars and leaders who have such idea. You may judge, yourself.
1- Muhammad Ibne Jarir Tabari (Shiite):
Imamat is a subdivision of prophecy.
This story has nothing to do with Avicenna, Khaje Nassir Al Din Tousi, or any others.
2- Ibne Shahr Ashoub:
Imamat is a subdivision of prophecy.
3- Allama Hilli:
الإمامة خلافة عن النبوة قائمة مقامها.
4- Kashif Al Qita:
Imamat is a divine position and it is granted to one by Allah as assignment of prophecy is by Allah …
5- Sheikh Muhammad Reza Muzaffar:
So, Imamat is continuation of prophecy.
6- Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Muzaffar:
Truly the dignity of Imam is like that of the prophet.
7- Allama Amini:
Truly the concept of Khilafat is as divine as prophecy.
8- Marashi Najafi:
إن الإمامة خلافة عن النبوة قائمة مقامها.
9- Seyyed Muhammad Baqer Hakim:
It is a necessity that a prophet is followed by an Imam.
10- Ayatullah Subhani:
Imamat is a continuation of duties of the prophet.
Some of intellectuals have treated toward Imamat unfairly. They say the part of Imamat in religious affairs was for Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) and the following Imams and the part of governing and holding political power was for Khalifas. This division was not fair and it was against the Book (the Quran) and the Tradition.
Leadership of the society
11- Great Ayatullah Milani:
Truly an Imam is a deputy of the Prophet.
12- Dr. Mustafa Qalib:
The religion cannot find its path without existence of Imam.
13- Shahid Mutahhari:
The issue of Imamat is basically something that follows prophecy. One of positions and dignities that the Holy Prophet had among people was his governance. But this was not a right which was given by people to him. It was a divine right which was given to the Holy Prophet by God. That is how until the prophet is alive, no one speaks about governance of the society. That is because he is beyond mankind. And also in presence of Imam, one cannot claim governance of the society.
What great scholars and leaders of Shiites think is that Imamat is continuation of prophecy and there is no separation and differentiation between them. This is not something according to religion. This difference is conclusion of some intellectuals in the last hundred years. They want to make a friendly relationship between Imam Ali (AS) and the Khalifas. This method is against both the holy Quran and the Tradition.
Most of our scholars and leaders considered Imamat as a base of our religion. Here are some examples:
1. مرحوم محقق طوسي (ره)
أصول الإيمان عند الشيعة ثلاثة: التصديق بوحدانية الله تعالي في ذاته و العدل في أفعاله و التصديق بنبوة الأنبياء عليهم السلام و التصديق بإمامة الأئمة المعصومين من بعد الأنبياء.
2. مرحوم علامه حلي (ره)
إن الإمامة من أركان الدين و أصوله.
3. مرحوم علامه مجلسي (ره)
لا ريب في أن الولاية و الإعتقاد بإمامة الأئمهb و الإذعان بها من جملة أصول الدين.
4. مرحوم محقق بحراني (ره)
ثبوت كون الإمامة من أصول الدين بنص الآيات و الأخبار واضحة الدلالة كعين اليقين.
5. مرحوم بيضاوي (از علماء اهل سنت)
Qazi Nurullah Shuhstari quotes Beizawi who said
و أن الإمامة من أعظم أصول الدين.
6. مرحوم سيد حامد حسين (ره)
When he comes to the Verse of Completion, he says
يدل علي عظمة شأن ما أمره تعالي بتبليغه، بحيث أنه إن لم يبلغه القوم فما بلغ الرسالة الإسلامية و لذهبت متاعبه و أعماله هباءا منثورا و ما ذلك إلا حكم الإمامة الذي هو أصل عظيم من أصول الدين و به يتم صلاح المسلمين في الدنيا و الآخرة.
7. مرحوم بهبهاني (ره)
الإمامة من أصول الدين.
8. مرحوم كاشف الغطاء (ره)
الإمامة أصل من أصول الدين.
9. مرحوم علامه أميني (ره)
لو عد الإمامة من أصول الدين فليس بذلك البعيد عن مقائيس البرهنة.
This that we separate bases of our religion, which are Monotheism, Prophecy of Prophet Muhammad, and Resurrection, from bases of our sect, which are Justice and Imamat, does not mean that our religion is something and our sect is different from that. That means the bases of the religion to which all Muslims are believer are the first three and Shiites, more to the first three, believe in justice and Imamat, too. Imam Khomeini has this word in the book Al Tahara:
Imamat is one base of sect.
So, all religious leaders and faqihs believe that if a Shiite denies Imamat, because he is denying a necessity of religion and a base of religion, he is to be behaved like an apostate. But it is not the same about a Sunni, since he may not be well informed about these issues and he may not be considered as an apostate.
What Sheikh Ansari wrote in his Al Makasib, with all respect we have to him, cannot be acceptable for us. If we want to look at Islamic society through that view, that is absolutely harmful for both Shiites and Sunnis. Even if what he said is true, we do not think it is beneficiary for Islamic society, Shiites, and the Islamic Revolution. We recommend that none argues those issues. Al our faqihs have issued the fatwa which says “If a Sunni Muslim does not act and propagate against Shiites and our Imams and is not their enemy, he can enjoy full points of Islam; self-refinement, cleanness, and marriage”.
We Shiites believe that among prerequisites of acceptance of our deeds by Allah, according to Shiite rules, is Welayat and without it, none of our actions will be accepted by Allah. We hold to this. There are several revayats from Shiites and Sunnis about this. It is one of prerequisites of going to the heaven to believe in Welayat, according to several revayats of Shiite and Sunni scholars. But beyond this idea may lead to division and we do not ever seek that.
But in our religious schools, there are some people who raise some issues that we do not think it is suitable to be discussed and quoted in religious schools. It is neither beneficiary to the school nor to students and scholars of there. Our young people so not have strong and scientific justification in the area of faith and belief. When a master or magazine publishes or says something, people would think it is what the religious schools or even Shiite sect believes in.
Some two or three weeks ago a magazine was published in Howza (the religious school) which was named “Companions of the Young Honest”. This is published by a group on whose managing level some people like Ayatullah Marefat and some others could be seen. There was an announcement inside it which affected me badly. I took that to authorities of Howza and they were shocked, too. The title was “Call for Scientific and Research Cooperation”. They have attached that to walls of schools and boards of schools. In several places of the announcement, they had mentioned the name of the Holy Prophet and after that they had saluted him without the phrase “and his descendants”. Throughout the 14 centuries of Shiism, we have not seen such expression. We have always saluted the Holy Prophet along with his descendants, which were Ahle Bait, in different forms. We complained to the authorities of the magazine about this and they said “It was a computer program!” Well, this computer program is designed by an individual and man can control it. It is not that a computer decides what we should do. Don’t other parts of Howza, such as Managing Council, use computer? Don’t other institutes in Qom use computer? Why this problem happened only to you and no others? Perhaps we imagine you are right and it was just a mistake. When we read the announcement, we see this CFP is about 1. Wives of the Holy Prophet, 2- Companions of the Holy Prophet, and 3- Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet. It means the Ahle Bait are placed last in the three topics. It clearly shows that those who has arranged this announcement and conference are a little bit indifferent. One of authorities of this magazine called me some days later and said “Have you criticized us?” I said “Yes! You name your institute ‘Companions of the Young Honest’. Do you mean the Holy Prophet? Why have you used the word ‘young’ here? the Holy Prophet was labeled ‘honest’ when he was young, so your institute belongs to the era of before prophecy of the Holy Prophet”. He remained mute and could not say anything. If we want to act according to will of some others, we should not play with our religious prestige.
This story finished and I informed those who had not read this announcement of what went on. The first volume of the magazine was published and one of top authorities of Howza wrote to me “Mr. Husseini Qazvini! Look at it carefully and say your opinion”. I studied the front page. Let us put prejudice aside. Honestly, do the input and output of this magazine help betterment of Shiite or destroys Shiite culture? In the front page, there was an article which addressed the Holy Prophet in this way:
You, Messenger of Allah! I know if you did not exist, hearts would not expand and no one could see blooms of smile. I know this. I know Shiite or Sunni, white or black, rich or poor, none are different to you.
What kind of speaking is this? Does it really make any difference for the Holy Prophet? Didn’t the Holy Prophet, himself, say “You, Ali! You and your Shiites (followers) are winners”. This revayat is repeatedly mentioned in different Sunni sources, whether narrative or analytical and historical. This revayat is mentioned under the holy verse “Those who have faith and do righteous deeds,- they are the best of creatures”.
Had the Holy Prophet spoke little about Ali (AS) and his Shiites and followers? I do not think this kind of speaking fits with prestige and position of our Howza and religious schools.
There is an article on page 38 of this magazine titled “Messenger of Monotheism”. Here is a fragment of the article:
Why should Muslims confront with each other in political and social matter due to their differentiation in understanding religious matters? It happens while they share the same bases of belief and Islamic sources in all aspects.
We have a question from authorities of this magazine: do you really believe that Shiites and Sunnis share the same bases of belief in all aspects? If they really do share, so why are there so many discords? If they have no discord in beliefs, why was then the house of Hazrat Zahra attacked? What did dragging Imam Ali (AS) to the mosque mean? What about occurrence of Ashura? Were all those great scholars of Shiite who wrote several books about legitimacy of Shiism, from Seyyed Murteza to Allama Amini, void and wrong? We do not want to set the fire of discord, but if you study carefully, you will see that we have differences from Monotheism and our religious orders to cleanness and salat. We even have differences with them in manners of going to the restroom. They believe that washing feces is not necessary and it is clean. It makes no problem for wudu and salat. This is Monotheism in Shiite view:
“No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things”.
And this is Monotheism of Sunnis: “God, like mankind, has hand, eye, and legs”. Shiites says “If a person claims vision of God, he is pagan”. Ibne Timiya says “Anyone who denies descent of God from the divine throne to the worldly sky or interprets that (in any different form) is heretic and astray”.
The fact that God exists is fixed and accepted in all religions. There is no argument over that. The difference is over attributes and traits we assign to Him.
In the following parts of the article, we read:
By unity, we do not mean Sunnis turn Shiite or Shiites convert to Sunnism. Each Sunni must be Muslim before he is Sunni and each Shiite must be Muslim before he is Shiite.
What kind of speaking is that? I was sitting with Great Ayatullah Shubeiri Zanjani and some other masters and he said:
When Verse of Completion was sent down, it was made clear that if before this Islam without Welayat (friendship to Imam Ali) was acceptable, from then on it could not be accepted as Islam. Muslims were free to act (in this issue) before descent of this verse, like before rise of Islam that everyone could act according to Judaism. But after descent of this verse, being Muslim without believing in Welayat is not acceptable.
In an article titled “Hireling Scientists”, it is written:
Some of hireling scientists and scholar follow policies of brutal and arrogant leaders and issue self-made fatwas of blasphemy of other Muslims. For instance, because a tribe believed in distortion of Quran and denied seal of prophecy and believed that Imams, who are members of Ahle Bait, are successors of the Holy Prophet, so they are considered as apostate.
What impression does it make to a young person? They consider all the three as one. This is a wrong example they brought. Can a scholar who considers a person who does not believe in seal of prophecy (which means Prophet Muhammad is the last Messenger of Allah), like what Baha’is think, as apostate be labeled as hireling? I swear to Allah; it is a dangerous example selection. A sect that does not believe in seal of prophecy and considers Imams as followers of the Holy Prophet as prophets; we do not have such a sect. This is what Baha’is think and label us of being like that.
In the recent volume of the magazine Ofoq Howza that we read yesterday, there was something added to what Ayatullah Marefat had said. Last night, Ayatullah Milani spoke about this matter for over one hour and we listened to that through the cassette we received from that lecture. I listened to that. It was so great; he showed his characteristics in being Seyyed and Shiite. Perhaps I could not respond as well as him; so scientific, harsh, and nice. The audio of this lecture is available on the website. The topic was Verse of Whisper:
“O ye who believe! When ye consult the Messenger in private, spend something in charity before your private consultation. That will be best for you, and most conducive to purity (of conduct). But if ye find not (the wherewithal), Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”.
One of verses about virtues of Imam Ali (AS) is this verse which is also sarcasm of Khalifas and other companions of the Holy Prophet. In the verse, as it was mentioned, God orders anyone who wants to whisper and consult with the Holy Prophet must pay charity. If you read Tafsir Tabari, Tafsir Ibne Kathir, and some other books, it is quoted from Imam Ali (AS) who said
When this verse was sent, no one but I followed what was said. I had one Dinar and changed it into 10 Dirhams and paid charity of one Dirham each of the ten times that I wanted to speak to the Holy Prophet.
Even all Sunnis believe that except for Imam Ali (AS), no one followed this verse; neither Abubakr, Omar, nor Othman. Even there is a revayat from Abdullah Ibne Omar who said “I wish three 3 of characteristics of Ali (AS) existed in me, too: (one of them is) acting according to Verse of Whisper”.
After Imam Ali (AS) did what is ordered in this verse for 10 times, the next verse was sent:
“Is it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your private consultation (with him)? If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you, then (at least) establish regular prayer; practise regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do”.
This is a tone of reprimand. These verses are the highest virtues of Imam Ali (AS). Even those who claim that Abuakr paid millions of Dinars as charity know that none of them paid charity for talking to the Holy Prophet.
It is mentioned in the magazine of Howza that someone asked Ayatullah Marefat “What do you think about the Verse of Whisper?”
The Ayatullah replied
Seyyed Qutb has a fine word in this regard. He believed that the Verse of Whisper wanted to set a stage for transferring a message and as soon as the message was delivered, the curtain was removed. The Arabs of that time used to speak cheaply to the Holy Prophet like that of a regular person due to his perfect behavior before prophecy. They wanted to continue this manner after his being in power in Medina. But because of his responsibilities, it was impossible to continue acting like that and have private dialogues. This verse wants to say that if you have something precious and valuable to tell the Holy Prophet and it may be useful to the society, well you may go to him. Otherwise, do not take his time. The Arabs received the message and stopped their previous attitude. That did not mean they did not like to pay charity. That is an order for a specific period of time. So it is not something old-fashion and the message of the verse is still useful. Imagine we had good relationship with leader of the Islamic Revolution. If we want to take his time anytime we like, that is something unacceptable. We should not treat an authority like a regular person. So this verse is still applicable.
About Seyyed Qutb, even Sunni scholars believe that he believed in transduction, according to his interpretation of Sura Al Towhid in his book Fi Zilal Al Quran. So he is pagan. This Seyyed Qutb has words and ideas about Ahle Bait that shows his true ideas. The holy Quran says “If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you”. We have several revayats from Imam Ali (AS) who says “I paid charity for ten times and after that, the verse was terminated”.
What Ayatullah Marefat says is interpretation of something which is clarified and stated clearly. Tabari, Ibne Kathir, and Soyuti had quoted this revayat. But he says this verse has nothing to do with termination. This kind of speaking is not acceptable for those who do not have enough information.
I am not going to discuss minor details of this verse, but if we refer to Al Qadir and Dalail Al Sidq, there are explicit and expanded discussions about this verse and doubts around that.
What Ayatullah Milani and I ask from authorities of this magazine and other magazines of Howza is that they write on the top of the front page that whatever is published in this magazine is not according to thoughts and beliefs of authorities of this magazine.
This magazine belongs to the Office of Management of Howza of Qom. If I, as an individual religious student make a mistake, I would be known as guilty and if an institute makes a mistake, that institute would be blamed. But we all consider ourselves as members of Office of Management of Howza of Qom and it is our duty is to help them to improve and develop. And if they have any shortcoming or failure, we should try to solve that problem.
God blesses us
Dr. Seyyed Muhammad Husseini Qazvini
Answering Doubts about Wilayat of the Imams
Master Husseini Qazvini
Regarding the present situation, Muslims need to be united, both in action and thought, more than ever. Now our enemies have percolated into our lands and they try to schematize Muslims and busy them with each other and, as the result, use our treasures and wealth. So, what is the necessity of the present time is unity and highlighting our shared ideas. All Islamic sects, whether Shiite or Sunni, are praying one unique God and say salat to the same direction (that is Qibla) and have hundreds of sharing. As Marhum Sharaf Al Din said “Sharing of Muslims are much more than their discords”.
We should avoid whatever causes division and resentment and we should ban those gatherings, especially in the month of Rabi’ the First in which there are insults, disrespects, and defamations. As one of our Maraaje (religious leaders) said “Libeling everyone, even a pagan who raises war against you, is not allowed and it is forbidden”.
Also insulting and disrespecting in not religiously allowed. And, unfortunately, one of our miseries is that those of the same clothing (religious scholars) are not aware of what they are doing. They do not know that they are doing what our enemies’ will is. They sometimes say some things in public that it causes a reaction from the other side. In a revayat, Imam Sadeq (AS) said “Do not insult your enemies. When you insult them, they will surely insult us”.
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance”
One of these people gave a speech in Isfahan and said something that it is not acceptable to quote it here. as of our Maraaje said “Such meetings in which people insult and disrespect (Sunnis) and causes discord among Muslims and also makes danger for our Shiite brothers in Iran and other Islamic and non-Islamic countries, are not surely acceptable to our Imams”.
In reaction to what this man said, a Sunni scholar in Zahedan said something. We condemn insults from both sides. Here we are going to reply to that part of his speech in this place (Howza of Qom, School of Feiziya) that he claimed that Shiites have no evidence for what they claim and he also had ascribed some lies to our scholars. First we quote what he said and then we analyze what he said:
His speech could be summarized in some sentences:
1- He says “You (Shiites) falsely claim that we say
You (Shiites) raise your hand three times after salat and say “Khan Al Amin”. That is because Gabriel wanted to deliver a message to Ali (AS), but he delivered it to the Holy Prophet”.
That it is not something we say. Seyyed Nemat Allah Jazairi in his book Anwar Nimaniya, p. 237 writes:
Gabriel was meant to deliver a message (an oracle) to Ali (AS), but he delivered it to the Holy Prophet.
Here we should tell this dear brother and all those who have libeled Shiites during the last 14 centuries, like Ibne Hazm Andolosi or Ibne Timiya (in Minhaj Al Sunna, vol. 1, pp. 23 and 24), that we have no Shiite scholar that claims Gabriel was meant to deliver oracle to Imam Ali (AS). What he says shows that he has not seen the book Anwar Nimaniya. It has three volumes. He should refer to the volume and page in which the claimed sentence is written. For his information, here we say that the claimed matter is mentioned in volume 2, page 237. He, in the mentioned and claimed part, discusses about void and false sects of Shiites, Khattabiya and Qarabiya, and says that one of void sects which falsely attaches itself to Shiites is Qarabiya whose followers and leaders claim that Gabriel was responsible to deliver an oracle to Imam Ali (AS), but he has delivered it to the Holy Prophet. Seyyed Nemat Allah Jazairi had narrated this story to criticize such void and misguided sects among Shiites. This expression is mentioned in the book Al Farq Bain Al Firaq of Bagdadi Shafeii, the fifth century scholar, and in page 237 as an example of a misguided and void sect. If we want to say that when an author quotes a misguided sect, so that person must believe in what he wrote, so we should accept that Mr. Shahrestani who wrote the book Al Milal wa Al Nihal, in which thousands of Islamic sects were introduced, must have believed in all those sects. Also, Abu Tahir Bagdadi Shafeii in his book Al Farq Bain Al Firaq has mentioned hundreds of sects and he must also have believed in all of those sects. We do not think this method is fair and true.
2- He says “You Shiites ascribed a lie to the Holy Prophet. You claim that he said:
You, Ali! Loving you shows a person is born legitimately and your hatred and enmity is only for the bastards.
We have no evidence for such a claim”.
There are several books in this regard, for example, Asni Matalib by Jizri in which he writes:
We used to test our children’s legitimacy according to their love for Ali (AS). If we understood that he loved Ali (AS), we understood that he is legitimate and from our own blood and if he had enmity with Ali (AS), we understood that he must be a bastard.
Muhib Al Din Tabari in Riyadh Al Nuzra and Allama Amini in Al Qadir have also mentioned these matters.
3- What he said is what has been repeated throughout history to attack Shiites and their culture. He says “You are opponent and enemy of Ali (AS). You do not follow him. That is because Ali (AS) cooperated with Abubakr, Omar, and Othman during the 25 years that they were in power. They were friends to each other and lived alongside with each other in peace and tranquility. Imam Ali (AS) had never argued about the situation and this shows his intimacy with the Khalifas. He even married his daughter, Umme Kolthum, to Omar and if he really did not like Omar, as you Shiites claim, he would not do such act.
This question is always being asked in universities and many of young people, face to face or through phone lines, ask about this matter. Also it is being misused by Wahhabis against Shiites.
Here, we are going to study this matter from two view points and through two different sources, Sunni and Shiite. There are some revayats, such as appearance of the Gene daughter and her similarity to Umme Kolthum, which cannot be accepted and it is no match to culture of Shiites. And in some other books, this matter is mentioned as a story and there is no valid source or reference for that. So they cannot be trusted on.
From View Point of Shiites
What can be narrated from Shiite sources and it can be trusted on is what Sheikh Kuleini mentions in his book, Kafi. He says:
Omar ask permission for marrying Umme Kolthum. Imam Ali (AS) said “My daughter is still a child. It is too soon for her to marry”. The second Khalifa was very sad. In his way back, he met Abbas, cousin of the Holy Prophet, and said “Do I look to have any problems?” Abbas said “No”. Omar said “I went to Ali (AS) and ask him to let me marry his daughter. But he rejected. I swear to Allah, I will destroy all dignities of Bani Hashim and will find two false witnesses that Ali is a thief and will cut his hand”. Abbas went to Imam Ali (AS) and told him what went on. So Imam Ali (AS), due to Abbas’s insist, left the matter to him and he did nothing from his own.
When Sheikh Mufid was asked about his opinion about Omar’s marriage to Umme Kolthum, he replied “We believe that for marriage, Monotheism and believing in Prophecy is enough. Being Shiite is not a prerequisite of marriage to us”.
Imam Ali (AS) had no other choice. This compulsion allows us do many things which were forbidden once. It sometimes leads to obligation of something from which we were banned in normal situations. There is no limitation in marriage to Sunni boys and girls. This that we let our daughter marry a Sunni boy or marrying a girl of other Islamic sects does not show supremacy of one over the other or vice versa.
In a true revayat from Imam Sadeq (AS), he says “She was our chastity (referring to women of a family, including, mother, sister, wife, etc.) which was taken from us by force”.
From View Point of Sunnis
This story is not mentioned in their accurate books such as Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. The first person to rise this issue was Ibne Sad in his book, Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, and later on Ibne Hajar in Al Isaba mentioned it and then, others studied about that. The issue of threatening has been mentioned in several Sunni sources such as Ibne Sad’s Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, vol. 8, p 464 or Muhib Al Din Tabari’s Zakhair Al Uqba, p 168. They write:
When Ali (AS) told Omar that his daughter is too young for marriage and rejected Omar, he complained and said “I swear to Allah, it is just an unacceptable excuse and you do not want me to marry your daughter”.
Dulabi, a Sunni scholar in Zurriya Tahira, p 158 and Muhin Al Din Tabari in Zakhair Al Uqba, p 170 and Heithami in Majma Al Zawaid, vol. 4, p 272 and Tabarani in Al Mujam Al Kabir, vol. 3, p 45 all have mentioned:
When Aqil went to Ali (AS) and complained that why he let Omar marry his daughter, Imam Ali (AS) replied “It was Omar’s whip which forced me accept his proposal”.
In some Sunni sources there are some quotations that do not match personality and characteristics which were defined for a Muslim, leave alone they are ascribed to the successor of the Holy Prophet who has named himself Commander of Believers. Ibne Hajar Asqalani, who shares a lot with Wahhabis and was contemporary to Ibne Timiya, writes in his book Al Isaba Fi Tamyiz Al Sihaba (vol. 8, p. 465):
When Ali (AS) was forced (to accept the proposal), … Omar started to touch Umme Kolthum’s leg. She got angry and said “If you were not Khalifa of Muslims, I would pull your eyes out”.
This is quoted by Ibne Hajar Asqalani and not Allama Majlisi, Kuleini, or Sheikh Tousi. Sunni scholars quote:
Omar touched Umme Kolthum’s leg. She got angry and said “If you were not Commander of Believers, I would break your nose!” Then she went to Ali and said “You sent me to an old man who is symbol of wickedness”.
Sibt Ibne Jowzi quotes his grandfather Ibne Jowzi who said
It is said that Omar touched Umme Kolthum in her leg. I swear to Allah, even if it was not Ali’s daughter and she was a bondwoman, it was not a good action. Touching a woman (before marriage) is forbidden according to all Muslims. How is it that it is ascribed to Omar?!
He wants to whether condemn this act or he intends to reject the whole story. Those who accepted that, according to the revayat, this act has happened, to they should accept all of this revayat and not only one part of it.
According to what said here, can this marital relationship lead to intimacy between Imam Ali (AS) and Omar Ibne Khattab? Surely it is impossible. Not only it is not a virtue for Omar, but it is a vice and sarcasm for him and it does not go with the position of leader of an Islamic society.
4- He says “In your speeches, you say that Omar has prohibited Muta’ (short-term marriage) and this is a lie. The one who banned Muta’ was the Holy Prophet. He did it after the war of Kheibar. You act against order of the Holy Prophet and Imam Ali (AS). It leads to abundance of bastards. The cause of raise in number of bastards is you Shiites”.
He kept speaking for twenty minutes and then said “This bastard, and son of Muta’ who spoke in Isfahan, does not bring evidence which shows Omar Ibne Khattab banned Muta’”.
If this brother of ours looks for evidence and our words reach his ears, he may kindly take a look at what we bring here as evidence.
There are hundreds of revayats which show that Omar banned Muta’ of Nisa and Hajj. Here I refer to only three juridical books of Sunnis and have nothing to do with revayats. A revayat which is quoted in a juridical book must have been examined several times that is mentioned in such a book (and it is reliable). In Sarakhsi’s book, Al Mabssot, which is the most explicit juridical book of Sunnis, it is written:
It is true that Omar prohibited people from Muta’ and said “There were kinds of Muta’ which was allowed at time of the Holy Prophet and I banned people from the; Muta’ Nisa and Muta’ Hajj”.
Sarakhsi had corrected the evidence and it is the strongest evidence.
Ibne Qidama, a very famous Sunni Faqih, says:
It is quoted from Ibne Abbas that Muta’ is allowed … and Ibne Jarij, Abu Said Khidri, Jabir, and Shiites believe in its being allowed. That is because it is proved that the Holy Prophet allowed Muta’. It is quoted that Omar said “There two types of Muta’ at the time of the Holy Prophet which I banned people from them; Muta’ Nisa and Muta’ Hajj. Anybody who commits them will be punished”.
About Ibne Jarij, who is a famous Sunni scholar and he was from the Followers, it is said that “Ibne Jarij prohibited his children from marrying 60 women whom he had married through Muta’. He told them that they are their mothers”.
Ibne Hizm Andolosi in the book Al Mahalli writes:
قال عمر بن الخطاب: متعتان كانتا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أنا أنهى عنهما و أضرب عليهما، هذا لفظ أيوب و فى رواية خالد أنا أنهى عنهما و أعاقب عليهما: متعة النساء و متعة الحج.
This man says we do not have any evidence for what we say. Here are our evidences.
These men believe that Muta’ was banned in the war of Kheibar. This is not true and it is said by Ibne Timiya, Ibne Hizm, and some others who wrote and spoke against Shiites. The issue of Muta’ is among unsolved and complicated issues among Sunni scholars. They have trouble solving this matter. From one side, there is a verse in Quran and interpreters have all agreed that according to that verse, Muta’ is allowed in Islam. From the other side, Omar had banned that. They say that Muta’ had existed in Islam and after a while, it was cancelled. Some believe that it was banned after the war of Kheibar.
It is quoted from Suheili, a famous Sunni scholar, who says:
The story of banning of Muta’ is something which is still ambiguous for scholars of history and hadith studies. Ibne Abdul Bir says “Most of people believe that the story of banning of muta’ after the war of Kheibar is fake and unreal”.
Qartabi discussed that in his interpretation and the following expression, which he says, shows that he is really wondered about prohibition of Muta’:
Scholars argue about how many times Muta’ was allowed and banned … it was allowed and banned seven times.
In Sahih Bukhari, that according to Sunnis is the most accurate books after the holy Quran and is the most accurate book in the area of hadith, it is expressed that when Muta’ was allowed, it was never cancelled and banned:
عن عمران بن حصين رضى الله تعالى عنه، قال: نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله ففعلناها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و لم ينزل قرآن يحرمه و لم ينه عنها حتى مات، قال رجل برأيه ما شاء.
It is surprising that Qastalani in Irshad Al Sari writes:
By the phrase “that man”, Omar Ibne Khattab is meant.
This Sunni brother says that Shiites spread Muta’ and the cause of abundance of bastards is Shiite thought. So, to end up the discussion, I draw your attention to what Tabari says in his Tafsir:
Ali (AS) said “If Omar had not banned Muta’, there would be no adulterer in the society, unless the person was corrupt”.
In Kunz Al Ummal, it is written:
Ali (AS) said “If it was not because of Omar’s decision in prohibition of Muta’, there would be no adulterer in the society, unless the person was corrupt”.
This shows that when Imam Ali (AS) had freedom, it was impossible for him to allow performance of Muta’. In the Sahihs, it is mentioned that it was Omar’s idea to say salat of Tarawih in public. When Omar came to mosque and saw people saying this salat in public, he said:
“What a good innovation”.
When Imam Ali (AS) wanted to stop this heresy, people argued that it is Omar’s tradition. So, Imam Ali (AS) said to Imam Hassan (AS) do as you like. Qartabi quotes Ibne Abbas who said “Muta’ was a mercy of God to his servants and if Omar had not banned it, no one but a corrupt person would commit adultery”.
This man says we do not have any evidence for our claim! He claims that Muta’ was banned after the war of Kheibar! He says that Shiites believe that Muta’ is allowed, so that number of bastards grows! In response, we say that all what we said are from your own books and none were quoted from books of Shiite scholars.
Ibne Hizm Andolosi in his book named Al Fisal wrote:
If we want to say anything about Shiites, we should refer to their own books and quote their sources. That is because they do not believe in our books. And also if Shiites want to discuss with us, they should refer to our books since we, too, do not accept what is mentioned in their books.
Sahib Wasail has a revayat in his book, Wasail Al Shia, about the story of prohibition of Muta’ in the war of Kheibar. He believes that idea is absolutely against idea and culture of Shiites and permit of Muta’ is among necessities of Shiite jurisprudence. We are not going to discuss about Shiite jurisprudence. That has been done before. Neither in Shiism nor in Sunnism, Muta’ is not banned. These revayats had been created during the period of Bani Umayya and they meant to ruin the valuable culture of Shiism and they were in defense of the Khalifas.
It was said to Abdullah Ibne Omar that “Your father prohibited Muta’, but you allow it. Why is that?” He said “I allowed it to act as my father said”. They said “How?” He replied “My father said ‘At the time of the Holy Prophet, there were two kinds of Muta’ which were allowed and I prohibited them’. The Holy Prophet allowed and my father banned. I am follower of the Holy Prophet and not my father”.
So, there is no way out for them in the case of Muta’ unless they make some false hadiths to defend them.
God blesses us all
Dr. Seyyed Muhammad Husseini Qazvini
 Al Aqani, vol. 22, p 25
 Sharh Nahj Al Bilaqa, Ibne Abi Al Hadid, vol. 11, 44
 Sura Al Hadid, Verse 29
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 4, p 210
 Sahih Muslim, vol. 7, p 141
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 4, p 42 and vol. 8, p 3 – Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p 6 – Al Sunan Al Kubra by Al Beihaqi, vol. 6, p 300 – Al Bidaya wa Al Nahaya by Ibne Kathir, vol. 5, p 306 – Al Sira Al Nabawiya by Ibne Kathir, vol. 4, p 567 – Fath Al Bari by Ibne Hajar, vol. 6, p 139
 Al Imama wa Al Siyasa, Ibne Qatiba Al Dinwari, Tahqiq Al Zeini, vol. 1, p 20
 Sura Al Ahzaab, verse 57
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 4, p 209 – Musnad Ahmad, vol. 5, p 391 – Al Mustadrak Al Sahihain Lil Hakim Al Neishabouri, vol. 3, p 151
 Al Fosul Al Mukhtara by Sheikh Mufid, p 56
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 5, p 83
 Nahj Al Bilaqa, lecture 217
 Kitab Salim Ibne Qais, research by Muhammad Baqer Al Ansari, p 218 – Misbah Al Bilaqa (Mustadrak Nahj Al Bilaqa) by Mir Jahani, vol. 3, p 5 – Al Ihtijaj by Sheikh Al Tabarsi, vol. 1, p 280 – Jame Al Ahadith Al Shia by Seyyed Al Borujerdi, vol. 13, p 43
 Sura Al Ahzab, Verse 21
 Al Musnif by Ibne Abi Shiba, vol. 7, p 485 – Sharh Nahj Al Bilaqa by Ibne Abi Al Hadid, vol. 1, p 164 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 30, p 413 – Tarikh Al Madina by Ibne Shaba, vol. 2, p 671 – Kinz Al Ummal by Muttaqi Al Hindi, vol. 5, p 678
 Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p 109 – Musnad Ahmad, vol. 3, p 355
 Sura Al Jumaa, verse 11
3 Al Musnif by Abd Al Razzaq, vol. 5, p 339 – Sahih Ibne Haban, vol. 11, p 224 – Al Mujam Al Kabir by Tabarani, vol. 20, p 14 – Jami Al Bayan by Tabari, vol. 26, p 129 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Soyuti, vol. 6, p 77 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 57, 229 – Tarikh Al Islam by Zahabi, vol. 2, p 371
 Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p 43 – Msunad Ahmad, vol. 4, p 286 – Al Sunan Al Kubra by Nassai, vol. 6, p 56 – Tazkira Al Hifaz by Zahabi, vol. 1, p 116 – Seir Aalaam Al Nibla by Zahabi, vol. 8, p 498
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 1, p 37
 Al Mahalli by Ibne Hizm, vol. 9, p 345
 Ali wa Ma Laqih Min Sahaba Rasul Allah by Mahmoud Abu Riya, p 373
 Majma Al Zawaid by Heithami, vol. 9, p 118 – Musnad Ibne Yali, vol. 1, p 427 – Al Mujam Al Kubra by Tabarani, vol. 11, p 61 – Sharh Nahj Al Bilaqa by Ibne Abi Al Hadid, vol. 4, p 107 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 42, p 322 – Tahzib Al Kamal by Mazi, vol. 23, p 240 – Mizan Al Itidal by Zahabi, vol. 3, p 355 – Al Kamil by Abdullah Ibne Udai, vol. 7, p 173 – Tarikh Al Bagdad by Khatib Al Bagdadi, vol. 12, p 394 – Fazail Al Sahaba, vol. 2, p 651
 Al Mustadrak Al Sahihain by Hakim Nishabouri, vol. 3, p 140
 Sura Al ISra, verse 7
 Al Silafa fi Amr Al khilafa by Maraqi Al Misri, p 32
 Al Silafa fi Amr Al khilafa by Maraqi Al Misri, p 33
 Sura Al-Maida, verse 55
 Tazkira Al Hifaz by Al Zahabi, vol. 1, p 5 – Kinz Al Amal by Mutaqqi Al Hindi, vol. 10, p 285
 Al Aqani, vol. 22, p 25
 Sharh Nahj Al Bilaqa by Ibne Abi Al Hadid, vol. 4, p 64
 Al Sunna by Ahmad Ibne Hanbal, vol. 3, p 53
 Sunan Al Termezi, vol. 4, p 135 – Sunan Ibne Majeh, vol. 2, p 1321 – Al Mujam Al Awsat by Tabarani, vol. 5, p 137 – Al Mujam Al Kabir by Tabarani, vol. 8, p 273 – Tafsir Al Qartabi, vol. 2, p 9 – Tafsir Ibne Kathir, vol. 1, p 354 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Soyuti, vol. 3, p 136 – Tafsir Al Alusi, vol. 4, p 23 – Al Kamil by Abdullah Ibne Udai, vol. 6, p 322 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 18, p 284 – Tazhib Al Kamal by Mazi, vol. 14, p 180 – Lisan Al Mizan by Ibne Hajar, vol. 6, p 56
 Al Mustadrak Al Sahihain by Hakim Neishabouri, vol. 2, p 343 – Al Mujam Al Kabir by Tabarani, vol. 3, p 46 – Mujam Al Zawaid by Heithami, vol. 9, p 168 – Tafsir Ibne Kathir, vol. 4, p 123 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Soyuti, vol. 3, p 334 – Al Kamil by Abdullah Ibne Udai, vol. 2, p 306 – Tazhib Al Kamal by Al Mazi, vol. 28, p 411 – Mizan Al Itidal by Zahabi, vol. 1, p 482
 Musnad Ahmad, vol. 3, pp 14 and 59 – Al Mustadrak Al Sahihain by Hakim Neishabouri, vol. 3, pp 110 and 148 – Al Sunan Al Kubra by Beihaqi, vol. 7, p 30 – Majma Al Zawaid by Heithami, vol. 9, p 163 – Al Musnif by Ibne Abi Shiba, vol. 7, p 176 – Al Sunan Al Kubra by Nassai, vol. 5, p 51 – Musnad Abi Yali, vol. 2, p 297 – Al Mujam Al Awsat by Al Tabarani, vol. 5, p 89 – Al Mujam Al Kabir by Al Tabarani, vol. 3, p 66 – Tafsir Ibne Kathir by Ibne Kathir, vol. 4, p 122 – Tafsir Al Alousi, vol. 22, p 195 – Al Tabaqat Al Kubra by Ibne Sad, vol. 2, p 194 – Al Kamil by Abdullah Ibne Udai, vol. 6, p 67 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 41, pp 19 and 42 and 216 – Seir Alaam Al Nibla by Al Zahabi, vol. 9, p 365 – Sunan Al Termezi, vol. 5, p 328 – Nazm Durar Al Simtin by Zarandi Al Hanafi, p 231 – Kinz Al Amal by Muttaqi Al hindi, vol. 1, p 172 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Al Soyuti, vol. 2, p 60 – Asad Al Qaba by Ibne Al Athir, vol. 2, p 12 – Manaqib Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) by Ibne Marduya, p 228 – Tarikh Al yaqubi, vol. 2, p 111
 Al Mustarshad by Muhammad Ibne Jarir Al Tabari Al Shii, p 641
 Manaqib Al Abi Talib by Ibne Shahr Ashub, vol. 1, p 224
 Al Nafei Yawm Al Hashr Fi Sharh Al Bab Ilhadi Ushr by Allama Hilli, p 95
 Asl Al Shia wa Osuluha by Sheikh Kashif Al Qita, p 221
 Aqaid Al Imamiya by Sheikh Muhammad Reza Al Muzaffar, p 66
 Dalail Al Sidq, vol. 2, p 11
 Al Qadir by Sheikh Al Amini, vol. 7, p 131
 Sharh Ihqaq Al Haq by Al Seyyed Al Marashi, vol. 2, p 312
 Ahle Bait fi Al Hayat Al Islamiya by Al Seyyed Muhammad Baqer Al Hakim, p 87
 Azwa Ala Aqaid Al Shiia Al Imamiya by Sheikh Jafar Al Subhani, p 385
 Muhazirat fi Al Itiqadat by Al Seyyed Ali Al Milani, vol. 2, p 525
 Al Imama wa Qaim Al Maqam, p 19
 Imamat Wa Rahbari, pp 163 and 186
 Qawaid Al Aqaid, p 466 – Bihar Al Anwar by Allama Majlisi, vol. 8, p 366
 Muntahi Al Matlab by Allama Al Hilli (old edition), vol. 1, p 522
 Bihar Al Anwar by Allama Majlisi, vol. 65, p 334
 Al Hadaiq Al Nazera by Muhaqqiq Al Bahrani, vol. 18, p 153
 Al Sawarim Al Muhraqa by Al Shahid Nur Allah Al Shushtari, p 170
 Khulasa Abaqat Al Anwar by Al Seyyed Hamid Al Naqawi, vol. 8, p 268 – Nafahat Al Azhar by Al Seyyed Ali Milani, vol. 8, p 254
 Misbah Al Hidaya fi Isbat Al Wilaya by Al Seyyed Ali Al Bihbahani, p 133
 Asl Al Shiia wa Osuloha by Al Sheikh Kashif Al Qita, p 24
 Al Qadir by Al Sheikh Al Amini, vol. 3, p 152
 Sura Al Bayyina, verse 7
 Sura Al Anaam, verse 103
 Majmua Al Rasail by Ibne Timiya, vol. 1, part 1, p 214
 Sura Al Mujadila, verse 12
 Al Mustadrak Al Sahihain by Al Hakim Al Neishabouri, vol. 2, p 482 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Al Soyuti, vol. 6, p 185 – Fath Al Qadir by Al Shukani, vol. 5, p 191 – Tafsir Al Alusi, vol. 28, p 31 – Shawahid Al Tanzil by Al Hakim Al Haskani, vol. 2, pp 320 and 321 – Nazm Durar Al Samtin by Al Zarandi Al Hanafi, p 90 – Zad Al Masir by Ibne Al Jowzi, vol. 7, p 325 – Al Musnaf by Ibne Abi Shiba Al Kufi, vol. 7, p 505 – Manaqib Ali Ibne Abi Talib (AS) by Ibne Marduya Al Isfahani, p 332
 Sura Al Mujadila, verse 13
 Sura Al Anaam, verse 108
 Al Kafi by Al Sheikh Al Kuleini, vol. 5, p 346
 Al Masail Al Akbariya by Al Sheikh Al Mufid, p 61
 Al Kafi by Al Sheikh Al Kuleini, vol. 5, p 346
 Al Istiab by Ibne Abd Al Bir, vol. 4, p 1954 – Tarikh Madina Damishq by Ibne Asakir, vol. 19, p 473 – Asad Al Qayat by Ibne Athir Jizri, vol. 5, p 614 – Seir Alaam Al Nibla by Al Zahabi, vol. 3, p 501 – Zakhair Al Uqba by Al Tabari, p 168 – Tarikh Al Islam by Al Zahabi, vol. 4, p 138 – Al Wafi Bi Al Wafiyat by Al Safadi, vol. 24, p 272
 Al Mabsut by Al Sarakhsi, vol. 4, p 27
 Al Muqanni by Ibne Qudama, vol. 7, p 572
 Seir Al Alaam Al Nibla by Al Zahabi, vol. 6, p 331 – Tahzib Al Kamal by Al Mazi, vol. 4, p 544 Tarikh Bagdad by Al Khatib Bagdadi, vol. 7, p 263
 Al Mahalli by Ibne Hizm, vol. 7, p 107 – Ahkam Al Quran by Al Jisas, vol. 1, p 352 – Tafsir Al Qartabi, vol. 2, p 392 – Tazkira Al Hifaz by Al Zahabi, vol. 1, p 366 – Mizan Al Itidal by Al Zahabi, vol. 3, p 552 – Tafsir Al Razi, vol. 5, p 167 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Al Soyuti, vol. 2, p 141 – Wafiyat Al Ayan by Ibne Khalkan, vol. 5, p 197 – Tarikh Al Bagdad by Al Khatib Al Bagdadi, vol. 14, p 202 – Tarikh Al Islam by Al Zahabi, vol. 15, p 418
 Al Bari by Ibne Hajar, vol. 9, p 145 – Umda Al Qari by Al Aini, vol. 17, p 247
 Tafsir Al Qartabi, vol. 5, p 131
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 5, p 158, book of Al Tafsir Al Quran
 Jami Al Bayan by Al Tabari, vol. 5, p 19 – Al Dur Al Manthur by Al Soyuti, vol. 2, p 140
 Kizn Al Amaal by Al Muttaqi Al Hindi, vol. 16, p 522
 Sahih Al Bukhari, vol. 2, p 252
 Tafsir Al Qartabi, vol. 5, p 130