قَالَ اللهُ تَعَالَی:

﴿إِنَّمَا یُرِیدُ اللَّهُ لِیُذْهِبَ عَنْکُمْ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَیْتِ وَیُطَهِّرَکُمْ تَطْهِیرًا﴾

Indeed, Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification.

(Sūrat al-Ahzāb 33:33)

Prophetic traditions, mentioned in most reliable Sunnī and Shī‘ite reference books of hadīth and tafsīr (Qur’anic exegesis), confirm that this holy verse was revealed to exclusively involve the five People of the Cloak; namely, Muhammad, ‘Alī, Fātimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, to whom the term ‘Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House)’ is solely dedicated.

For instance, refer to the following references:

A. Sunnī Reference Books:

(1) Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Al-Musnad, 1:331; 4:107; 6:292, 304. (2) Sahīh Muslim (d. 261 AH), 7:130. (3) Al-Tirmidhī (d. 279 AH), Sunan, 5:361 et al. (4) Al-Dūlābī (d. 310 AH), Al-Dhurriyyah al-Tāhirah al-Nabawiyyah, p. 108. (5) Al-Nassā’ī (d. 303 AH), Al-Sunan al-Kubrā’, 5: p. 108, 113. (6) Al-Hākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405 AH), Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Sahīhayn, 2:416, 3:133, 146, 147. (7) Al-Zarkāshī (d. 794 AH), Al-Burhān, p. 197. (8) Ibn Hājar al-Asqalānī (d. 852), Fath al-Barī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhārī, 7:104.

B. Shī‘ite Reference Books:

(1) Al-Kulaynī (d. 328 AH), Usūl al-Kāfī, 1:287. (2) Ibn Bābawayh (d. 329 AH), Al-Imāmah wa al-Tabsirah, p. 47, H. 29. (3) Al-Maghribī (d. 363 AH), Da‘ā’im al-Islām, pp. 35, 37. (4) Al-Sadūq (d. 381 AH), Al-Khisāl, pp. 403, 550. (5) Al-Tūsī (d. 460 AH), Al-Amālī, H. 438, 482, 783.

For more details, refer to the exegesis of the holy verse involved in the following reference books of tafsīr: (1) Al-Tabarī (d. 310 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (2) Al-Jassāss (d. 370 AH), Ahkām al-Qur’ān. (3) Al-Wahīdī (d. 468 AH), Asbāb al-Nuzūl. (4) Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH), Zād al-Masīr. (5) Al-Qurtubī (d. 671 AH), Al-Jāmi‘ li-Ahkām al-Qur’ān. (6) Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (7) Al-Tha’ālibī (d. 825 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (8) Al-Suyūtī (d. 911 AH), Al-Durr al-Manthūr. (9) Al-Shawkanī (d. 1250 AH), Fath al-Qadīr. (10) Al-‘Ayyāshī (d. 320 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (11) Al-Qummī (d. 329 AH), Book of Tafsīr. (12) Furt al-Kūfī (d. 352 AH), Book of Tafsīr; in the margin of the exegesis of verse 4:59. (13) Al-Tabrisī (d. 560 AH), Majma‘ al-Bayān, as well as many other reference books of hadīth and tafsīr.

P: 2

A Survey into the Lives of the Infallible Imāms

P: 3

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صلی الله علیه و آله:

إنِّی تَارِکٌ فِیکُمُ الثَّقَلَیْنِ: کِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِی أهْلَ بَیْتِی، مَا إنْ تَمَسَّکْتُمْ بِهِمَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِی أبَداً، وَإنَّهُمَا لَنْ یَفْتَرِقَا حَتَّی یَرِدَا عَلَیَّ الْحَوْضَ.

The Messenger of Allah (ṣ) said:

“Verily, I am leaving among you two weighty things [thaqalayn]: The Book of Allah and my progeny [‘itrat], the members of my Household [Ahl al-Bayt]. If you hold fast to them, you shall never go astray. These two will never separate from each other until they meet me at the Pond [ḥawḍ] (of Kawthar).”

Some references:

- Al­Ḥākim al­Nayshābūrī, Al­Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut), vol. 3, pp. 109-110, 148, 533

- Muslim, Al-Ṣaḥīḥ, (English translation), book 31, hadīths 5920-3

- Al­Tirmidhī, Al-Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 5, pp. 621-2, hadīths 3786, 3788; vol. 2, p. 219

- Al-Nassā’ī, Khaṣā’iṣ ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, hadīth 79

- Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 14, 17, 26; vol. 3, pp. 26, 59; vol. 4, p. 371; vol. 5, pp. 181-182, 189-190

- Ibn al­Athīr, Jāmi‘ al­Uṣūl, vol. 1, p. 277

- Ibn Kathīr, Al­Bidāyah wa al­Nihāyah, vol. 5, p. 209

- Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm , vol. 6, p. 199

- Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Albānī, Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah (Kuwait: Al-Dār al-Salafiyyah), vol. 4, pp. 355-358

P: 4

A Survey into the Lives of

the Infallible Imāms

By

Āyatullāh Murtadā Mutahharī

Translated By

Zainab Muhammadi ‘Iraqi

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly

P: 5

نام کتاب: سیری در سیره ائمه اطهار علیهم السلام

نویسنده: استاد مرتضی مطهری

تهیه کننده: اداره ترجمه ی مجمع جهانی اهل البیت (ع)

مترجم: زینب محمدی عراقی

زبان ترجمه: انگلیسی

A Survey into the Lives of

the Infallible Imāms

Author: yatullāh Murtadā Mutahharī

Translator: Zainab Muhammadi ‘Araghi

Prepared by: Translation Unit, Cultural Affairs Department; The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly

Editor: Zahra Abbās Razavi

Proofreader: Majid Karimi

Publisher: ABWA Publishing and Printing Center

First Printing: 2010

Printed by: Layla Press

Copies: 5,000

© The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly (ABWA)

www.ahl-ul-bayt.org

info@ahl-ul-bayt.org

ISBN:

All rights reserved

P: 6

P: 7

P: 8

P: 9

P: 10

P: 11

To assist the seekers of truth, the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly has endeavored to present a new phase of these arguments contained in the studies and translations of the works of contemporary Shī‘ah writers and those who have embraced this sublime school of thought through divine blessing.

The Assembly is also engaged in edition and publication of the valuable works of leading Shī‘ah scholars of earlier ages to assist the seekers of the truth in discovering the truths which the School of the Prophet’s Household (‘a) has offered to the entire world.

The Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly looks forward to benefit from the opinions of the readers and their suggestions and constructive criticism in this area.

We also invite scholars, translators and other institutions to assist us in propagating the genuine Islamic teachings as preached by the Prophet Muhammad (s).

We beseech God, the Most High, to accept our humble efforts and to enable us to enhance them under the auspices of Imām al-Mahdī, His vicegerent on the earth (may Allah expedite his advent).

We express our gratitude to Professor Murtadā Mutahharī (May Allah bless his soul), the author of the present book, and Mrs. Zaynab Muhammadī ‘Irāqī, its translator. We also thank our colleagues who have participated in producing this work, especially the staff of the Translation Office. ?

Cultural Affairs Department

The Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) World Assembly

p: 2

To clarify this topic of discussion, I must add that “dissimulation” [taqiyyah] is the attribute by which the Shī‘ahs have been recognized and that it is something which has been advocated by the teachings of the Divine Imāms. It is perceived as an exclusive characteristic of the Shī‘ah. So much so that the terms “Shī‘ah” and “dissimulation” as well as “Hātam al-Tā’ī”(1) and “generosity”, are conceded as implicants of each other.

All of the Imāms acted in accordance with dissimulation during their lifetime, except Imām al-Husayn who did not dissimulate and instead chose to rise up against the corrupt government. If dissimulation was justified, why then did Imām al-Husayn choose not to act upon it, even though all the necessary grounds were laid for him to do so? And if dissimulation was not justified, why did the rest of the Imāms dissimulate and order their followers to do so?

Moreover, this in itself is a fundamental debate regardless of whether the methodologies of the Imāms were similar or if they differed. Assuming that they all followed one methodology, all chose to dissimulate or none did so, this in itself must be debated, taking into consideration the principles of jurisprudence(2) and Islamic theology (including whether or not dissimulation corresponds to Qur’anic teachings and logic).

Although widely attributed to the Shī‘ah branch of Islam, dissimulation is also present among non-Shī‘ahs—it is on the same level as the belief that alterations to the Qur’an are part of the Shī‘ism. Albeit, supposing a group of Shī‘ahs are able to alter the Qur’an; the same numbers of Sunnīs(3) are able to carry out such a task. The number does not change according to one’s belief. Of course, if a Sunnī scholar cannot distort the Qur’an, then neither could a Shī‘ah scholar. However, this issue was only raised as an example and we do not intend to focus on it here.

To further clarify the issue of dissimulation, it must be noted that there have been other examples where contradictions in the doctrine and behavior of the Imāms were observed, not only in the issue of dissimulation. For example,

p: 4

the Prophet (s)(1) might have acted differently from Imām ‘Alī (‘a), or both acted the same, whereas Imām al-Sādiq and Imām al-Bāqir (‘a) acted dissimilar to them. These discrepancies have been noticed on many occasions and I shall mention some of them in further examples. Therefore, given that we believe in the infallibility of the Imāms, that their deeds are as much a testament as their word, whose conduct should we pursue?

Since we believe that the Prophet (s) has directed us towards them, we have accepted the leadership of Ahl al-Bayt(2) (‘a) and regard their sayings and deeds as testament. Therefore, we are more affluent in evidence and sayings than the Sunnīs. We have more traditions [hadīths] and valuable prayers (which themselves act as gates to Islamic culture and education, and must be discussed separately) than the Ahl al-Sunnah. Since they do not have as many traditions as we do, this places Shī‘ism in a richer state. Those who have counted the number of hadīths in the Sunnī Sihāh al-Sittah(3) and Al-Kāfī(4) have said that there are not as many hadīths in those six authentic books as there are in Al-Kafī. I have not counted the number myself, but those who have read the books have said that it contains more than 16,000 hadīths, making this book a jewel for the Shī‘ahs. For this reason, the Shī‘ism has never seen the need for qiyās(5) (analogical reasoning) and istihsān(6) (juristic preference), which has always been a source of pride.

I would, however, like to add that there is no doubt that having a large number of hadīths and references can be regarded as a strong point for the Shī‘ahs. However, as a result of numerous errors, they can also be considered

p: 5

as a setback for the Shī‘ahs. Having fourteen leaders, each of whom announces different routes and traditions may result in perplexity, confusion and chaos. This will only pave the way for those who wish to use religion in their own interests, to achieve their immoral aims by spreading corruption. They will be equipped with holy forces, using the hadīths and deeds of the Imāms as proof justification for their actions. In this way, they misguide everyone else to act in the way they desire. All this will only result in dispersal, chaos, lack of morals, and social principles. Pity the nation which lacks morals and social principles, allowing everybody acting upon their own ways of thinking. The saying “once a patient has too many doctors, there is no hope for recovery” is on the same basis with what is mentioned above.

Beyond doubt, if all these apparently different methodologies are not researched, examined and explored, we will still see these negative effects even if we have several leaders with different approaches, or leaders that have the same approach but express it differently in different places and we will not be able to resolve these differences to reach a specific aim. This will lead us to chaos as mentioned before.

As an example, if we look at the lives of Prophet Muhammad (s) and Imām ‘Alī (‘a), we see that they lived in poverty, wearing patched clothing and feeding themselves on oat bread. Also in the Qur’an it says,

“Indeed, you have in the Messenger of Allāh an outstanding exemplar for him whose hope is in Allāh and the Last Day, and remembers Allāh much.”(1)

This implies that all people are obliged to follow the Prophet’s path and customs. They must all live on low class levels and wear patched clothes. On the other hand, when observing the lives of Imām al-Mujtabā(2), Imām al-Sādiq or Imām al-Ridā(3) (‘a), we see that they did not live in the same fashion as the Prophet. They lived well, ate good food, wore good clothes and appreciated the superb aspects of life.

Once, Imām al-Sādiq (‘a) paid a visit to a wealthy person. He found the wealthy person in a small house. The Imām asked him, “Why do you not buy yourself a bigger house?” He replied: “This is my father’s house, in which he used to live.” The Imām then asked, “If your father was lacking common

p: 6

sense, does that mean you should be foolish like he was? Do you want to pay the price for your father’s senselessness for the rest of your life?”

It is such apparent contradictory issues in Shī‘ism that make it look like it has this weak spot. But the same example can be used to show that not only is it not a weak point but a point of strength. For an introduction, let us assume two cases:

1) when an infallible leader [imām] lives among us for 20-30 years, the changes, transformation, twists and turns that take place and the way the Imām acts towards them are not enough for us to master all the necessary aspects of religion and become familiar with the outlooks and features which we will be required to base our lives on in this changing world. This is because religion, like all other theoretical and practical studies, has its own statements and adjustments and orientations.

2) But if the same leader lived with us for 250 years, facing a variety of matters, and showed us ways of solving and dealing with such issues, we would become better accustomed to religious teachings and free from extremity and aridity. According to the logic expression “free of taking something as a cause that is not the cause”(1), we would be better able to escape the “mixing of reality and subsidiary”(2). Mixing reality and subsidiary means two things that are always together, one of which is involved in a third matter, the other of which is in no way involved with the third matter but its presence is based on its company of the first. It would be wrong for us to assume that the second matter is the cause of the third matter. Assuming we have A and B on a plate. A produces C. We might then think B produced C or that B had an effect on producing C. It is of no doubt that religious leaders followed a doctrine and ideology suitable to their time, meaning religion has given freedom to people according to the exigency of the time. Therefore, with a multiplicity of religious leaders or long life of one leader, man can better distinguish the essence of religious teachings from the exigency of his time. He can grasp the spirit of the religion and exclude the issues that are only appropriate to the exigency of time. It is possible that the Prophet (s) executed some actions based on the necessity of his time, like the destitute life he used to live. On the other hand, Imām al-Sādiq (‘a) did not live such a life. Now I shall narrate a story, which may help to clarify this issue.

p: 7

In a famous saying, mentioned both in Al-Kafī and Tuhaf al-‘Uqūl, Sufyān al-Thawrī(1) visited Imām al-Sādiq (‘a) and objected to the Imām wearing fine clothing, since the Prophet (s) did not wear such garments. The Imām said, “Are you inferring that since the Prophet used to live in that way, every one else should do the same until the end? Do you not know that this is not a part of the Islamic commandment? You must act and think upon wisdom. You must use your intellect and take time and place in to consideration.(2) The Prophet used to live a middle-class lifestyle appropriate to his time. Islam commands equality and compassion. We must observe that this was the lifestyle of the majority at that time. Of course, as the Prophet was the leader, people used to give up their wealth and life for him and it was possible for him to have all sorts of lifestyles. However, he never took advantage of that, even though it was all available to him. Islamic commandments denote sympathy, compassion and equality. They stand for justice and fairness. It is the soft and delicate methods which stop the frustration in the soul of the poor and prevents a friend or a neighbour, or whoever may be watching your acts, from becoming upset. If the luxurious lifestyle that is available now were possible during the time of the Prophet, then he would not have conducted his life in that way. People are given personal choices on the aspect of dressing up, and may choose whether to wear old or new clothes, in whichever material and style they prefer. Religion does not pay attention to such matters. What is important in religion are issues such as sympathy, compassion, equality, justice and fairness.” The Imām then added, “And as you see me now, I am aware of the responsibilities towards my possessions, thus there is no logical or spiritual difference between my method and the Prophet’s (s).” It has been mentioned in the hadīths that there was once a famine during the time of Imām al-Sādiq (‘a). He ordered his finance supervisor to sell their stocked wheat in the market and said they would purchase their daily bread needs from there. The bread from the market was made from a mix of oat and wheat. Islam does not specify whether to have wheat bread or oat bread or mix oat and wheat together, but it does say: your way among people should be accompanied with fairness, justice and kindness.

Examining this difference between the Prophet’s approach and Imām al-Sādiq’s, we can better understand the spirit of Islam. If Imām al-Sādiq had not

p: 8

explained this issue, we would have considered this aspect of the life of the Prophet (his middle class lifestyle), which was based on the necessities of his time, to be a part of Islamic commandments correlated with Sūrat al-Ahzāb (33:21) which commands us to follow the Prophet. This would have led us to presenting complicated arguments and restricting people until the Day of Judgement. Therefore, Imām al-Sādiq’s statement and his explanation of the apparent difference between his method and the Prophet’s is a valuable lesson for us which relieves us from extremity and aridity and familiarizes us with the meaning and spirit of religion. Fortunately, Imām al-Sādiq has made a statement personally on this issue, but even if he had not made such a statement, our own wisdom, endeavor and independent judgement should help us not to consider such issues contradictory, opposing and conflicting. Such extremity is especially present among Traditionalists [Akhbārīs](1) who even disallow smoking.

Consequently, one way to solve the contradictions facing the different doctrines is what is known in common expression as the conventional solution [al-hall al-‘urfī](2) or the conventional reconciliation [al-jam‘ al-‘urfī](3), which considers the difference in necessities of the time. This can even be used in cases of contradiction, to which our scholars have not paid attention.

Another example; once they mentioned this hadīth to ‘Alī, “Color the white hairs in the beard and do not let yourselves resemble the Jews.” ‘Alī used to narrate this but never acted upon it, meaning he never dyed his beard. ‘Alī responded thus, “This order was specific to the Prophet’s time. It was a war tactic employed so that the enemy would not be able to recognize the old from the young in the army. This was a con at times of war, which the Prophet used repeatedly but today it depends on individuals’ prerogative.”

Now if Imām ‘Alī’s method was not there and he had not explained this issue, we would have assumed that the Prophet had commanded all people to dye their beards and we would have been occupied by the state of people’s beards, instructing them to continue to dye their beards until the Day of Judgement. Thus, this is itself a way of solving the contradictions. Of course, this task needs all the necessary research and studying.

p: 9

I remember one of the well-informed and broad-minded scholars who talked about ‘delegated freedom’ [tafwīd], traditions that echoed frequently, about how Allah gives free-will (e.g. the authority of the justice administration) had said: for example…(1)

We should also know that there are issues related to the essence of religious teachings, i.e. the divine collective commands. They cannot be altered or transformed in anyway and are a consequence of high and public interests. Until there is man, these commandments are there and until the point that man is a man, he must take these commandments in use.

p: 10

the situation as extremely chaotic and that an even more chaotic situation was to be expected. This is the clause, “We are facing a matter that has (several) faces and colors (it is an enigmatic matter).” We do not have a clear future ahead of us. In the following sentence the Imām refers to several issues, “Clouds are hovering in the sky (and the horizons are blocked with fog).” Just like when fog in the air blocks man’s vision rendering him unable to see his path. “A clear path is not discernible (the way is unrecognizable to people).” But then he gives what seems to be an ultimatum. He says, “You should know that If I respond to you, I will as I know how (not how you want me to).” Finally he said, “Leave me be. At present, I would rather stay a minister than to become a chief [amīr].”

These statements reveal that ‘Alī had envisaged many problems during his caliphate; these same problems appeared and later revealed their facets. What were those problems? I cannot describe all those problems in one session for you; therefore, I shall discuss with you ‘Alī’s biggest problem with clarification. I will enlighten you of the rest of ‘Alī’s problems in a brief summary leading up to ‘Alī’s most serious problem and the biggest complication that entrapped him.

and criticizing. But ‘Uthmān would not surrender himself. ‘Alī is an ambassador between the revolutionaries and ‘Uthmān, which in itself is another peculiar story. Although ‘Alī disagrees with ‘Uthmān’s tactics, he also opposes ‘opening doors’ to Caliph killing. He does not want them to kill the Caliph as it would lead to rioting amongst Muslims, which itself has a long story.(1) He is critical towards ‘Uthmān and tries to dissuade him from the path he has taken trying to lead him towards the right path, so that this might extinguish the fire within the revolutionaries and to stop the rioting. Neither did ‘Uthmān and his associates agree to change their way, nor did the revolutionaries stop the upheaval which, consequently, resulted in ‘Uthmān’s assassination.

‘Alī knew that ‘Uthmān’s murder would become an issue that caused mutiny. This is especially interesting in view of the strange fact that has been discovered by sociologists, historians and researchers who have studied Islamic history that some of ‘Uthmān’s associates and followers played a part in his assasination (the Nahj al-Balāghah also explains this issue). They wanted ‘Uthmān to be killed, for conflicts to be triggered in the Muslim World, so that they may use this to their advantage (these are present in the texts of the Nahj al-Balāghah).

Mu‘āwiyah, in particular, played an important role in ‘Uthmān’s murder. Covertly, he was trying to escalate the rioting, so that it may result in the killing of ‘Uthmān, thus enabling him to use this murder to his own advantage. This is another problem which I cannot discuss any further.

‘Alī’s opponents differed from the Prophet’s opponents in that the Prophet’s opponents were mainly groups of non-believers and idol-worshippers who rejected Allah’s existence openly, and who fought the Prophet under the motto, “Long Live Hubal”(2) The Prophet (s) also had an explicit motto, “Allah is the greatest of all.” However, ‘Alī was facing an intelligent, non-religious group, who, although pretending to follow Islam, were not true Muslims. Their slogans were Islamic but their aims were against Islam. Mu‘āwiyah’s father, Abū Sufyān, had fought the Prophet (s) under the slogan of “Long Live Hubal”, therefore making the Prophet’s task of fighting him much easier. His son, however, Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, who has the same soul and shares

p: 13

the same goals as his forefathers, fought against ‘Alī using the following verse from the Qur’an as his slogan,

“And whosoever is killed unjustly (wrongfully), we have indeed given his next of kin [his heir] an authority.”(1)

The slogan is a good one. However, is there anyone who can ask Mu‘āwiyah who ‘Uthmān’s legal guardian is, who can ask for ‘Uthmān’s blood? Of what business is it to you to ask for ‘Uthmān’s blood when you are a very distant relative? ‘Uthmān has a son and other closer relatives and what’s more, what did ‘Uthmān’s death do with ‘Alī? Nevertheless, a man as manipulative as Mu‘āwiyah does not care about these questions; he only wants to use this to his advantage.

Mu‘āwiyah had ordered his spies beforehand to send ‘Uthmān’s blood-spattered shirt to him in Syria as soon as ‘Uthmān was killed. Therefore, as soon as ‘Uthmān was assassinated, without even waiting for the blood to dry, they sent the blood-spattered shirt, together with ‘Uthmān’s wife’s(2) fingers, to Mu‘āwiyah. He got very excited then and ordered for ‘Uthmān’s wife’s fingers to be hung from his podium. Then, he said “O people!! The world is surrounded by oppression, Islam is lost! These are the fingers of the Caliph’s wife!” Then, he ordered for ‘Uthmān’s shirt to be hung on a stick and taken to a mosque or somewhere else. He went there himself and started crying for the innocent Caliph. For a while he read sermons about ‘Uthmān and prepared the people to avenge ‘Uthmān’s blood; whom do we seek vengeance from? We should seek it from ‘Alī! ‘Alī cooperated with the revolutionaries who had sworn allegiance to him. If they had not cooperated with him, then why are they in his army?” This was a big problem which resulted in the two battles of Jamal(3) and Siffīn(4), caused by the spiteful people.

p: 14

During the Prophet’s time, the group that was created by the Prophet was not one formed as a result of a revolution which simply gathers the masses under one flag. He trained a group, united them, brought them forward step by step and gradually penetrated Islamic morals and teachings into their souls. The Prophet (s) was in Mecca(1) for thirteen years. He suffered all kinds of torture, agony and pain from the people of Quraysh(2), but continuously called for patience whenever his companions would say, “O Messenger of Allah! Please give us permission to defend ourselves, how long should we suffer? How many should they torture or kill from among us? How many times must they lay us on the heated grounds of Hijāz and place large stones on our chests? How many more times must they lash us?” However, the Prophet (s) would never grant permission for a holy war and defence. Finally he only consented to emigration after which some groups emigrated to Habashah (Ethiopia)(3), which was beneficial. However, what was the Prophet doing during these thirteen years? He trained and taught. In other words, he was creating the core of Islam. The group, who at the time of migration might have been around 1,000 people, were all familiar with the essence of Islam and the majority had Islamic training. The main prerequisite of a movement is the presence of a teaching and training group which have already become familiar with the principles and goals as well as the tactical ideology of that movement. These groups can, therefore, form the focal point to which others can later join and be trained by in order to learn to adapt themselves to their teachers. This was the secret behind the success of Islam.

Therefore, the difference between ‘Alī’s situation and that of the Prophet was, firstly, that the people with whom the Prophet (s) dealt were predominantly non-believers. This means he was confronting explicit paganism. He was dealing with a blasphemy that spoke for itself. However, ‘Alī was dealing with covert paganism, i.e. hypocrisy. He was tackling a nation that was pursuing the objectives of the non-believers, but hid under an Islamic cover of sanctity and piety, bearing a Qur’anic appearance.

The other difference apparent in the era of caliphate, especially during ‘Uthmān’s, was that the Prophet’s (s) methods of teaching and training were not explored and practised as much as was expected and instead other

p: 16

triumphs and many conquests were pursued. Conquests alone do not achieve much in the long run. Throughout the thirteen years that the Prophet remained in Mecca, he did not even allow Muslims to defend themselves. This was because the people were not yet capable of this sort of defence or jihād(1). If war and conquest is to take place, it must be simultaneous to the spread of Islamic culture and ethos which must be built up. People who become attracted to and those who convert to Islam must also learn and understand its objectives and principles, its ‘core and crust’. However, as a result of the negligence that took place during the time of the caliphs, an important social phenomenon took place in the Islamic world: formation of a new group in the Islamic community. Although this group was fond of Islam and believed in Islam, it was only acquainted with Islam’s ‘crust’, its appearance. It did not know the essence of Islam. This was a group that concentrated on, for example, the act of praying with little knowledge and appreciation of the Islamic objectives behind it. A priggish and dogmatic group formed of people who had formed calluses on their foreheads, palms and knees as a result of their excessive and long prostrations. These prostrations would sometimes last from an hour or two to five hours even on bare sandy grounds. When ‘Alī had sent Ibn ‘Abbās(2) to them when they rioted and rebelled against him, Ibn ‘Abbās came back saying, “Their foreheads are wounded because of excessive prostrations; they have hands that have calluses like the knee of a camel. They have old, ascetic looking clothes. Most manifest are their resolute and indomitable faces…”(3)

An ignorant and puritanical faction oblivious in worship had come into existence in the Muslim World; a faction with no knowledge whatsoever of Islam yet very keen to be part of it. It was not familiar with the ‘core’ of Islam but was glued to its ‘crust’.

‘Alī describes this group of people thus,

“They are a people who are rough, remorseless, tough, hard-hearted, rude, but with inferior, slavish characters and spirits. Their souls are not magnanimous. You cannot find nobility in their souls. They are a hooligan type of people. It is not clear which corner they have appeared from. One is

p: 17

from this corner, another is from the other. A group of lowborn and lowbred people, whose origin and background is unclear; a crowd who should come and sit in the first year of Islam and learn Islamic lessons. They are illiterate and have no knowledge. They do not know what the Qur’an is. They do not understand the meaning of the Qur’an. They do not know the traditions of the Prophet (s). They must be taught and trained. They have not gathered Islamic education and training. They are not part of the Emigrants [muhājirīn] and Helpers [anṣār] who were trained by the Prophet (s). They are a group of people who have no Islamic demeanour.”

‘Alī became caliph at a time when this group of people existed among Muslims. They permeated every area, even his army. You have probably heard many times the story of the Battle of Siffīn and the con that Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās(1) used. When they finally realized that they were losing, they plotted to use this group of people to their advantage. They ordered for Qur’ans to be raised on spears: “O people! We all believe in the Qur’an. We are all people of the same Qiblah. Why are you fighting? If you want to fight then take aim at these Qur’ans.”

Immediately, this group stopped fighting, claiming, “We shall not fight the Qur’an.” They came to ‘Alī and said, “All matters have now been resolved. The Qur’an has been set forth. Now that the Qur’an is brought forward, there is no reason for war.” ‘Alī said, “Do you not know that from day one I tried to convince them to pass judgement and ruling about who is right based on the Qur’an? They are lying. They have not brought forward the Qur’an itself but its papers and cover so that they can rise up again against this very Qur’an. Do not pay attention. I am your imām. I am your ‘speaking Qur’an’. Go and progress forward.” They said, “What! What nonsense is this?! Up until now we considered you a good person and were of the belief that you are a decent person. Now it is clear that you have your own ambitions. You mean we should go and fight against the Qur’an? No, we will not fight.” To which ‘Alī replied thus, “All right. Do not fight.”

p: 18

Mālik al-Ashtar(1) was progressing forward. They said, “Send an immediate order to Mālik to return. Fighting the Qur’an is no longer tolerable.” They placed great pressure on ‘Alī, who then sent a message to Mālik requesting that he return. Mālik did not return, saying, “Sir! Please give me permission. In only two hours they will be defeated.” The messenger came back informing them that Mālik would not return, to which they replied, “Either Mālik returns or we shall cut you into pieces with our swords [they were about 20,000 in number]. You are fighting the Qur’an?!” ‘Alī (‘a) sent another message, “Mālik, if you want to see ‘Alī alive, come back.” Then, the issue of arbitration was put forward. They said, “Well now! Let us choose an arbitrator, now that the Qur’an has been set forth.” The other side chose the evil ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās. ‘Alī chose the clever and honorable scholar ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās. They said, “No, we should choose somebody who is not related to you.” ‘Alī then said, “Mālik al-Ashtar.” They said, “No, we do not approve of him.” Some thers also objected to this. They said, “We only approve of Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī(2).” Who was Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī?! Was he a member of ‘Alī’s army? No, he was a former governor of Kūfah who was ousted by ‘Alī. He was in his heart an enemy of ‘Alī. They brought Abū Mūsā. He was tricked by ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās in a con that was more similar to a game than any serious issue you may have heard of. When they realized they had been deceived, they said, “We made a mistake.” Now, from saying they have made a mistake, they mean to confess to another mistake. They did not say, ‘We made a mistake when we stopped fighting Mu‘āwiyah and we should have continued the fight. This was not a battle against the Qur’an. This was a battle for the Qur’an.’ They said, No, that was correct. They also did not say, ‘We made a mistake for choosing Abū Mūsā. We should have accepted Ibn ‘Abbās or Mālik al-Ashtar.’ Instead, they said, “Principally, the fact that we accepted two people to judge the religion was blasphemous. In the Qur’an it states, “The judgment (command) belongs to none but Allah.”(3) Because in the Qur’an it says judgment (command) exclusively belongs to Allah, then no human has the right to make a judgment. Therefore, choosing

p: 19

arbitrators was fundamentally blasphemous and, in fact, a form of polytheism. We are now repenting, ‘I ask Allah’s forgiveness and turn towards Him’.”

They then went after ‘Alī, “‘Alī! You have become a non-believer like us. You must also repent. (Now, do you see the problem? Is Mu‘āwiyah ‘Alī’s problem or these puritans? Is ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās, ‘Alī’s problem or these puritans?)” He replied, “You are wrong! Arbitration is no blasphemy. You do not understand the meaning of the verse. It refers to the fact that the law must be set by Allah alone or somebody who is permitted to do so by Him. We did not want somebody to come and set us law. We said, ‘Qur’anic law’; let two people come and judge according to the Qur’an.” They said, “This is it.” ‘Alī said, “I shall never confess to a sin I have never committed. I shall never say that something is against the religious law when it is not. How can I falsify something to Allah, the Honorable and Exalted, and the Prophet (s)? You want me to say arbitration and choosing arbitrators in the time of disagreement is against the religious law and is blasphemous? No, it is not blasphemous. You can do whatever you wish.”

They never followed him in prayer, instead they claimed, “‘Alī is not a Muslim. He is a non-believer and a polytheist.” When ‘Alī was reciting al-Fātihah(1) and the Sūrat(2) of his prayer, someone by the name Ibn al-Kawwāb(3) entered and recited this verse,

“And indeed, it has been revealed to you and to those [who have been] before you: ‘Surely if you associate (other deities with Allah), your deeds will certainly come to naught.’”(4)

This verse is directed at the Prophet (s), “O Prophet! We have sent divine revelations to you just like the prophets before you. If you become polytheist, all your deeds will go to waste, or if those prophets had become polytheists, their deeds would have gone to waste.” By reading this verse he was implying: ‘‘Alī! We agree that you are the first Muslim; this is what your records and services to Islam show. But because you have become a polytheist and considered a partner for Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, you have no more rewards left with Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.’ How was ‘Alī supposed to react? ‘Alī acted by considering the verse that says,

“And when the Qur’an is recited, listen to it, and keep silent, that you would possibly be granted mercy.”(5)

This indicates that when you hear somebody reciting the Qur’an, pay attention and listen to it, and so ‘Alī kept silent and listened. When Ibn al- Kawwāb finished, he continued his prayer. As soon as the Imām proceeded, the person repeated the verse. ‘Alī again kept silent and when Ibn al-Kawwāb had finished, continued with his prayer. For the third or fourth time when he repeated the verse, ‘Alī paid no more attention and read this verse,

“So have patience; verily, the promise of Allah is true; and those who have no certitude, never induce you to levity (make you unstable and divert you from your path).”(6)

And he continued to pray.

p: 21

[wājib](1) and unconditional, one must therefore rise up against an unlawful imām. There was no other choice but to rise up against ‘Alī, they claimed. They all camped outside the city and began rioting officially. They followed a set of rigid and rough principles during their riots and claimed, “All others are non-Muslim and because they are not Muslim we cannot marry from them; that their meat slaughtered is forbidden [harām](2); that one must not buy meat from their butchers.” Worst of all, they considered the killing of women and children from those other than themselves as permissible. Since they considered the killing of others as permissible, they went out of the city and began robbing and killing. A bizarre situation had come about.

One of the Prophet’s companions was passing by their location with his pregnant wife. They stopped him and asked him to disown ‘Alī. He refused. They killed him and ripped his wife’s stomach with a spear. “You are non-believers,” they said.

Once they were passing a palm garden (the garden belonged to somebody whose wealth could not be intruded upon, because he was highly respected by all). One of them picked a date and placed it in his mouth. They shouted at him loudly, “Are you intruding on your Muslim brother’s wealth?”

‘Alī has a saying in the Nahj al-Balāghah (‘Alī is a remarkable being, his greatness appears here substantially). He says, “It was I and I alone who removed the eye of this revolt. No one save me could have stopped them with his sword.”(1) ‘Alī declares that only he could have pulled out the eye of this mutiny (i.e. the mutiny of the puritans). Besides ‘Alī, no Muslim dared to draw their sword against the neck of the Kharijites, because this so-called religious group could only be killed by two other groups. One group comprises of people who do not believe in Allah and Islam, for example the companions of Yazīd who killed Imām al-Husayn. The other group comprises those who are themselves Muslims; however, to be Muslim and have the courage to speak against, let alone act against, the Kharijites was not in any man’s capacity. Doing this required great courage. It needed the insight that ‘Alī had to realize the danger for the Muslim World (later on I will tell you how ‘Alī felt according to his own sayings). On one side, there were they praising Allah and reciting the Qur’an, and on the other side there was ‘Alī drawing his sword to eradicate them. The insight required was something that could only be found in ‘Alī. He said, “No one except me advanced towards it.” No other Muslim, not even from amongst the Prophet’s companions had the courage to draw his sword on them. ‘But I did and I am proud that I did, after a time when the waves of darkness had taken their toll in this murky sea(2) “and its madness was intense”.

This sentence is remarkable. Their disease (rabies) was spreading. Kalab means rabies. When a dog catches rabies, it is commonly known that the dog becomes wild. When this disease appears in the animal, it can no longer differentiate its owner from a stranger. It will bite whoever approaches it, bites them transferring the virus into the victim’s blood causing him to contract rabies. ‘Alī says, “These puritans had turned into dogs with rabies

p: 24

and just like such dogs, whoever they had contact with would turn into someone like them.

Just like when people give themselves the right to execute a dog with rabies so it could no longer bite and spread its disease, I saw no option but to eradicate them, otherwise it would not have been long before they had passed their disease to the Muslim World and sunk the society into an image of rigidity, petrifaction, idiocy and ignorance. I envisaged their danger to Islam. It was I who pulled out the eye of the mutiny. When the waves of their darkness, dubiousness and scepticism had raised and their rabies had progressed and was penetrating to others, no one save me had the courage for such a task.”

of his arrows and crushes his targets with you. You are definite tools in the hands of Satan.”

You must also pay attention to the fact that during ‘Alī’s time a group of hypocrites had appeared consisting of the likes of Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās. They were very wise and well informed of the facts, and by God they knew ‘Alī better than others. History bears witness to the high regard Mu‘āwiyah had for ‘Alī; nevertheless he would go to war against him (lets not forget the power of materialism and greed or other complexities of that matter). The reason for this is that after ‘Alī’s martyrdom when any of ‘Alī’s close companions went to Mu‘āwiyah, he would ask them, “Describe ‘Alī to me!” When they began describing, his tears would pour down; he would sigh and say, “Alas! Time can never again bring a person like ‘Alī.”

Therefore, there were people like Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās who acknowledged ‘Alī and his regime and were aware of his objectives, but greed did not give a chance to the belief in their hearts. These hypocritical groups always used puritanical factions to reach their goals. This big problem of ‘Alī will always carry on in the world. There will always be hypocrites. Even today, we can find the likes of Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās in various guises. There will always be puritans like Ibn Muljam and other instruments in the hands of Satan, who are always ready to be deceived and accuse the likes of ‘Alī of being a non-believer and a polytheist.

Someone once claimed that Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna)(1) had become a non believer.(2) Ibn Sīnā then dedicated the following quatrain in response to this claim,

Being a non-believer is not easy for someone like me,

No belief in religion is firmer than my own.

One of my kind in the world and a non-believer?

p: 26

If so, there is not a Muslim to be found anywhere in the world!(1)

These puritans have claimed that almost every great scholar that Islam has had till now was either non-Muslim or a non-believer. I will recount an event to illustrate this point. Muslims! Be alert. Do not be like the Nahrawān(2) Kharijites. Do not become arrows in the hands of Satan.

Once, a friend called me, “Sir! I am shocked. I have heard something strange. This Iqbāl(3) of Pakistan you have held a celebration for has insulted and cursed Imām al-Sādiq in his book!” I said, “What is this nonsense?” He asked me to take a look at a certain page in a certain book to see for myself. I said, “Have you looked at it yourself?” He said that he had not but a much esteemed gentleman had told him. I was staggered. I was shocked to hear how friends, like Mr Sa‘īdī, who have read the books of Iqbāl from the beginning to the end failed to spot such a thing! I said, “Firstly, there was nothing said about a remembrance or a tribute. It was about objective placement. The one we did not pay tribute to was Iqbāl. We placed Iqbāl as an objective for a sequence of Islamic objectives. If you were not present you can see it in the book once it is published.”

I immediately phoned Mr. Sayyid Ghulām Ridā Sa‘īdī to ask him about this. He was also astonished on hearing this. He said, “No Sir! I have read the book. No such thing is possible.” I said, “But such a big lie cannot be possible.”

An hour or two later when he remembered he came to me and said, “I know what this is about. This is the story: there were two people in India by the names of Ja‘far and Sādiq(4). When the English took over India, the Muslims

p: 27

rose up against them. These two people, however, made peace with the English, stabbing the Islamic movement in the back and destroying it. Iqbāl has reproached them in his book. I assume this is where the mistake was made.” I said, “We shall see.” When I got the book, this was what was in the pages those gentlemen were referring to, “Whenever there is destruction in the world, either a Sādiq or Ja‘farī is present there.” In the two previous pages, it says,

Ja‘far(1) from Bengal(2), Sādiq(3) from Deccan.(4)

Disgrace to religion, disgrace to the world, and disgrace to the homeland.

He is referring to Ja‘far Bengali and Sādiq from Deccan. But was Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq from Bengal or from Deccan? We then conducted a historical research. After the English took over India, two Shī‘ah Muslim commanders by the names of Sirāj al-Dīn(5) and Tipu Sultan(6) (Sirāj al-Dīn was apparently from Southern India and Tipu Sultan from Northern India) bravely rose (And Iqbāl greatly praises these two Shī‘ah heroes).

The English found Ja‘far in Sirāj al-Dīn’s state and allied with him. He (Ja‘far) was partner with the thieves and a friend of the caravan. In Tipu Sultan’s system, they allied with Sādiq. He (Sādiq) also became the partner of the thieves and the friend of the caravan. They both betrayed their people and the outcome was three hundred years of British colonization by the English.

p: 28

This led the Shī‘ah to have high regard for Sirāj al-Dīn and Tipu Sultan, as they were both heroes and Shī‘ahs. They are also respected by the Ahl al-Sunnah because they were Islamic heroes. Hindus also respect them, as they were also native heroes. But the other two (Sādiq and Ja‘far) are considered as traitors among the Shī‘ah, Sunnī and Hindus of India and Pakistan. They are also known for being indecent, hateful and symbols of treachery. Now that three months have passed since that event, I have rarely been confronted with the question, “Sir! Why has the person, whose poems in praise of Imām al-Husayn you read, cursed Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq?” And the other issue that has become the laughing stock of most non-Islamic circles and is tormenting me is the reflection of this story: the Pakistani Iqbāl has implicated the Bengali Ja‘far and the Deccani Sādiq but wherever Muslims go they say Iqbāl has cursed Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq! Take a look at the mind of these Muslims! We feel embarrassed (in these non-Islamic meetings) about the low level of thought among our people!

When ‘Alī’s messenger was in Damascus, Mu‘āwiyah ordered that the announcement for Friday Prayer is made, even though it was only Wednesday. They announced “Friday Prayer” and he led “Friday Prayer” on a Wednesday. No single person objected to this. He summoned ‘Alī’s (‘a) representative in private and said, “Tell ‘Alī that I will come after him with one hundred thousand men who cannot tell a Wednesday from a Friday. Tell ‘Alī to gauge the situation and act accordingly.” And now the Husayniyyah-ye Irshād has become guilty because one day they discussed Palestinians and said: “People! Help the Palestinians. A group of Jews (with the Israelis spies abundant in this country and unfortunately most of them are our own Muslims) are holding a grudge against the Irshād Trust and there is not a day that goes by when a rumour is not spread about them.”(1)

I do not want anything from you but to open your eyes! Investigate! Be aware. Jewish agents are plentiful in all Islamic states. Their hands, spies and money are continuously active. Do not be one of the Nahrawān Kharijites. How long will we continue to draw swords against Islam in the name of Islam? If we do not want to learn from these experiences, where do we want to take advice from? Why do we gather every year and hold ceremonies in the name of ‘Alī? It is because ‘Alī’s life is instructive, informative and educational. Some educational aspects of ‘Alī’s life include his struggles

p: 29

with the Kharijites, his battle against puritanism, disunity and ignorance. ‘Alī does not want ignorant Shī‘ahs. ‘Alī despises Shī‘ahs who transmit false information like electricity, or for example when imposters and Jews spread the rumour that ‘a Pakistani Iqbāl has cursed your Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq’, he spreads the rumour that a Pakistani Iqbāl was, God forbid, sacrilegious (about a man who was devoted to the household of the Prophet (peace be upon him) without a shred of thought. He would not even open Iqbāl’s book or at least ask about the history behind it from the Pakistani embassy or other resources. Open your eyes! Open your ears! Do not believe whatever you hear immediately. Do not be hasty to declare that, ‘they say such and such’. The end of ‘they say such and such’ is said to be rooted in something dangerous. Investigate! Investigate (between yourselves and Allah), then say whatever you want, but do not say anything before you have done your research.

‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Muljam killed ‘Alī. You should observe how they (the Kharijites) praised him. A Kharijites has a quatrain, the first verse of which reads,

Hail the strike of this pious man who

Did not consider anything but satisfaction of Allah(1)

Later he says, “If the deeds of all people were placed in the divine balance as well as the strike of Ibn Muljam, you will see that no one has done anything greater than what Ibn Muljam has done.”

This is what ignorance does to Islam and Muslims.

Ibn Muljam came to Kūfah and waited for the promised day. During this time he met and fell in love with a girl called Quttām who was also a Kharijites and a fellow believer. He may have, up to an extent, tried to fight thoughts of her. When he approached and discussed this matter with her, she responded thus, “I am willing, but my dowry [mihr] is very heavy.” He was so captivated by her that he agreed without preconditions. She required three thousand dirhams from him. He told her that it was not a problem. She asked for a slave boy. He agreed. “And a slave girl,” “Not a problem”, he replied. She ended her requests with, “And fourth, the killing of ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib.” He was shocked because his thoughts of killing ‘Alī had headed in a different direction at that point. He replied, “We want to get married and live happily, killing ‘Alī will not leave a chance for our marriage and life together.” She replied, “This is it. If you seek union with me, you must kill ‘Alī. If you live, you will gain what you seek, and if you die, then nothing.” He struggled with his thoughts for a while. He has a poem, two verses of which are as follows,

She required these things from me as her dowry.(1)

The world has never seen a dowry so high.

Later he goes on to say,

Any dowry in the world, no matter how high, is not on the same level as ‘Alī. My wife’s dowry is the blood of ‘Alī.

There has not been an assassination and there will never be another one until the Day of Judgment unless it’s smaller than the one committed by Ibn Muljam.(2)

And he was right. Let’s take a look at what ‘Alī’s (‘a) will. On his deathbed, ‘Alī (‘a) is witnessing and leaving behind two occurences in the ummah. One is the presence of Mu‘āwiyah and his followers (the hypocrites, the deviators, [qāsitīn]). The other is the issue of the puritans. These two are in contradiction to one another. How will ‘Alī’s companions handle these issues after him? ‘Alī says, “After me, do not kill them anymore.” Even though they killed me, do not kill them after me as this will be a favour to Mu‘āwiyah and not to truth and justice. The danger of ‘Mu‘āwiyah’ is different. He said,

p: 31

“After me, do not kill the Kharijites anymore, because whoever seeks truth and commits a mistake is not the same as the one who seeks falsehood from the beginning and has reached it.”

‘Alī does not hold grudges against anyone. He always speaks logically. As soon as they captured Ibn Muljam, they brought him to ‘Alī. In a frail voice (as a result of the sword strike) the Imām spoke to him and asked him, “Why did you do such a thing? Was I a bad Imām for you?” (I am not sure how many times this was asked but whatever I have said has been taken from writings). Apparently, at one time he was influenced by ‘Alī’s spirituality and said,

“Can you then rescue him who is in the Fire?”(1)

“Can you then rescue an atrocious person who has been damned to hell? I was abject for committing such an act!” They have also written that when ‘Alī spoke to him, he replied in an angry voice and said, “‘Alī! When I bought that sword I made a vow to Allah to kill the worst of his creatures with this sword and I have always prayed and asked to kill the worst of his creatures with this sword.” ‘Alī (‘a) responded, “It just so happens that this prayer of yours has been granted because you are going to be killed with this very sword.”

‘Alī passed away. He was in the big city of Kūfah. Apart from the Nahrawān Kharijites, the rest of the people wished they could participate in his funeral, to cry and weep for him. It was the night of the 21st of Ramadān. People were still not aware of what was happening to ‘Alī. ‘Alī left the world at midnight. As soon as he passed away, his children, Imām al-Hasan and Imām al-Husayn, Muhammad ibn Hanīfah, Abū al-Fadl al-‘Abbās, and an exclusive group of the Shī‘ahs (who did not exceed six or seven) washed ‘Alī’s body in private, put the grave shroud on him and buried him in the darkness of the night, in a spot that had apparently been previously decided by ‘Alī himself (nobody knew where his holy burial took place and according to various traditions, some of the dignified prophets are buried in the same land). His followers kept the location of his burial a secret. The next day, people found out that ‘Alī had been buried on the previous night. Where was ‘Alī’s burial place? There was no need for anybody to know. It has even been reported that that Imām al-Hasan (‘a) sent a semblance of the Imam’s body to Madīnah, so people would think that ‘Alī had been taken to Madīnah to be buried. Why?

p: 32

Because of the Kharijites; if they knew Imām ‘Alī’s burial place, they would have disrespected it. They would have disinterred the grave and exhumed ‘Alī’s body out of his grave. Indeed, ‘Alī’s place of burial remained a secret to everyone other than ‘Alī’s children and the children of their children (the Infallible Imāms), for as long as the Kharijites were in power.

One hundred years later, when the Kharijites no longer existed and the Umayyad dynasty were overthrown by the ‘Abbasids (who were not a great threat to this issue), Imām al-Sādiq, for the first time, revealed ‘Alī’s burial place. The famous Safwān who has been named in Ziyārat-e ‘Āshūrā, says, “I was visiting Imām al-Sādiq in Kūfah, he took us to ‘Alī’s grave and said, ‘This is the grave of ‘Alī’, and ordered us (apparently for the first time) to set up a shade for the grave. Since then ‘Alī’s grave was made public’.”

Therefore, ‘Alī’s big problem was not exclusive to his time. His grave was kept a secret for one hundred years after his death, only out of fear of this group. “Allah’s blessings be upon you, O father of al-Hasan! May Allah’s blessings be up you, O the Commander of the Faithful!” How oppressed were you and your children! I cannot say whether Amīr al-Mu’minīn (‘a) was more oppressed or his noble son Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Husayn.

In the same manner that ‘Alī’s (‘a) body was not in peace from his evil enemies, the body of his beloved child was also not in peace from his enemies. Maybe this is the reason why he said, “There is no day like the day of my son, al-Husayn.”

Imām al-Hasan (‘a) hid Imām ‘Alī’s body. Why? So that ‘Alī’s body would not be disrespected. But the situation in Karbalā was different. Imām Zayn al-‘Ābidīn could not gather the strength to immediately hide Imām al-Husayn’s body. The outcome was that which I do not want to recall.

That person said,

What need is there for ragged clothing after attacks,

Which left not even a flesh on his battered body?(1) ?

p: 33

p: 34

both, in fact, revert to jihād. Imām al-Hasan ceased and made peace but Imām al-Husayn did not cease and fought. We shall thus convey the essentials of Islam in the subject of jihād. We have not seen among those who have discussed Imām al-Hasan’s reconciliation to have included such aspects. Therefore, we shall touch on this question: what were Imām al-Hasan’s reconciliation and Imām al-Husayn’s battle based on?

with the non-believers in Mecca who were among his worst enemies. Again, we see in Medina that the Prophet signs a no-violation treaty with the Jews. What can this mean?

by ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf(1) only two people, from the initial six, remained as candidates: ‘Alī and ‘Uthmān. The story behind this was that ‘Umar(2) formed a council consisting of 6 people responsible for choosing his successor. three people stepped aside, one in favor of ‘Alī who was Zubayr(3), one in favor of ‘Uthmān who was Talhah(4) and one in favor of ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf who was Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās(5). Three people were left. ‘Abd al-Rahmān said, “I am not volunteering.” This left only two people and the voting was left to ‘Abd al-Rahmān. Whoever ‘Abd al-Rahmān votes for will have four votes (because he himself had two votes and each of the two volunteers had one vote) and according to that council, he will be chosen as the Caliph. ‘Abd al-Rahmān came to ‘Alī first and said, “I am willing to give you my oath of allegiance on the condition that you follow the Book of Allah and the conduct of the Prophet (s) and the methods of the two previous caliphs.” He replied, “I give oath of allegiance on the condition of following Allah’s Book and the conduct of the Prophet and whatever I perceive.” ‘Abd al-Rahmān then went to ‘Uthmān, “I will give you my oath of allegiance on the condition that you follow the Book of Allah, the conduct of the Prophet and the way of the previous two caliphs.” ‘Uthmān accepted. However, ‘Uthmān diverted from the methods of the previous caliphs. Then, they came and objected to ‘Alī (‘a), “Why did this happen? What will you do now that they have done such a thing?” He replied,

“As long as this oppression is aimed towards me but the affairs of Muslims rotate on their axis and orbit and the person, who is in my place, albeit unjustly, runs the affairs provisionally, I submit and have no objection.”

p: 38

After ‘Uthmān and during Mu‘āwiyah’s time, people would swear allegiance to ‘Alī. Then, ‘Alī decided to wage war against the outlaws, who were known as the Violators [nākithīn], the Deviators [qāsitīn] and those who misunderstood the truth of religion [māriqīn], as well as the people of Jamal, Siffīn and the people of Nahrawān.

After the Battle of Siffīn a division was caused in ‘Alī’s army due to the riots of the Kharijites and the deceit by ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās and Mu‘āwiyah, who raised the Qur’an on spear heads saying: lets allow the Qur’an judge between us, with which some agreed, and so there was no place left for ‘Alī. Reluctant, ‘Alī accepted their offer to resort to arbitration. This in itself is an example of ‘peace’. He agreed for arbitrators to decide based on the Qur’an and Islamic commandments. However, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās twisted the story in such a way that its outcome was useless, even for Mu‘āwiyah himself. He ended it by way of deceit. He deceived Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī but his deceit did not remove ‘Alī from the picture or give way to Mu‘āwiyah. Everyone realized that the two arbitrators had not reached an agreement and that one had deceived the other. One would say that he would overthrow both, whereas the other claimed that he was lying. They started to fight and disgraced one another, accusing each other of deceit. And so the story turned out fruitless.

In any case, the arbitration story falls into the same category. Why did ‘Alī agree to arbitration and did not continue the battle, even though he was forced by the Kharijites to do so? Ultimately, he would have been killed just like his son Imām al-Husayn. Likewise, we ask: why didn’t the Prophet wage war from the beginning? Ultimately, he would have been killed just like Imām al-Husayn. Why did he make peace in Hudaybiyyah? Ultimately, he would have been killed just like Imām al-Husayn. Let us consider this situation: why did not Amīr al-Mu’minīn wage war from the beginning? Again, he would have ultimately been killed like Imām al-Husayn. Also, why did he surrender to arbitration? He would have ultimately been killed like Imām al-Husayn. Are these statements true or not? We then reach Imām al-Hasan’s time and the issue of his pacifism. The subsequent Imāms lived in situations similar to that of Imām al-Hasan. Therefore, the issue is not only about Imām al-Hasan’s peace or Imām al-Husayn’s war. It is a much broader issue and must be discussed accordingly. I will read you some excerpts from the book of Jihād so we can get a general picture of the topic and enter the details later.

p: 39

In this case, they say that an imām’s permission is not a requirement. This case is very nealy similar to the present situation that Israel has created by occupying the Muslim country. In this case, it is compulsory for all Muslims, whether man or woman, free or not free, near or far to participate in this jihād, which is a war for defence and, therefore, does not require the permission of an imām. When we say “whether near or far”, it is meant that this jihād is not exclusive to those Muslims who have been attacked. An uprising will become compulsory on anyone who becomes informed of the situation, unless he is certain that they (the people under attack) are adequate in number and have the power to defend themselves.(1) This means that the enemy is weaker and does not have enough power; while, on the other hand, the Muslims are more powerful and thus are not in need of help. Otherwise, should he find out that his presence is needed, jihād would become compulsory upon him. The closer they are situated (geographically), the stronger the obligation. In other words, in such a case, their obligation becomes definite.

The third case is similar to jihād, but it is not the general jihād. It is a particular jihād. Its rules are different to those of the general jihād. General jihād has specific rulings, one of which is that if anyone is killed during this jihād, he is considered to be a martyr [shahīd]. Consequently, his dead body does not need to be washed [ghusl] before it is put into the grave (i.e. his body has already been purified) and is buried with the same clothing he died in.

The blood of a martyr is superior to water,

This sin is superior to one hundred rewards. (2)

The third type is also colloquially known as jihād, but it is one jihād that does not have all the rules of the general jihād. Its reward is the same as the reward for the normal jihād. Its figure is considered as a shahīd. It can be explained as follows: if an individual is not in an Islamic land, but rather in a territory that belongs to non-believers, who are attacked by another group of non-believers, and there is a danger of mortality for him who is living among them (e.g. a Muslim is living in France when a war breaks out between Germany and France). What is the responsibility of a Muslim in such a situation: someone who is not one of them? His responsibility would be to

p: 41

save his life by any means even if he deems it necessary to take part in the war in order to save his life, then he must do so. It is not his responsibility to take part in the war to express his sympathy with what is taking place in his surrounding. In such a case, if he is killed, his reward will be the same as a martyr. We have other such cases in Islam, whose participants also merit the title of shahīd although the same rulings of burial, as in the case of general jihād are not applied to them. For example, other shahīds may be buried with the clothes they died in and do not need to be washed before burial. These rules, as well as some others, do not apply to such cases. Another example of such a case is someone who is attacked by an enemy, as a result of which his life, family and property are put at stake, even if the enemy happens to be Muslim. For example, someone is sleeping in his house. A thief (even a thief who is a Muslim, who is possibly one of those thieves, who, as Hājī Kalbāsī used to say, does his night prayers(1) but is a thief) comes and attacks this house and wants to take the property of the owner. Can one defend his wealth in such a case? Yes, there are chances of being killed, you say? Even if there is a ten percent chance of dying, efforts to save one’s life, even by a ten percent chance, are compulsory. Although, since in this case the situation involves saving one’s property, the person can continue to resist until there is a fifty percent chance of survival. However, if there are dangers other than the loss of property, such as a threat to one’s life or the life of his relatives, even if there is a one hundred percent chance of getting killed, it is obligatory for him to rise up to defend himself and fight. He must not say that he has intended to kill me, what can I do? No, if he has intended to kill you, it becomes obligatory upon you to kill him first. You must show resistance and not say: he wants to kill me! Why should I do anything at all? Why should I get involved?

make peace, it would become compulsory upon them to fight against the rebellious group, in favor of the oppressed. The context of the Qur’anic verse is as follows,

“If two groups of the faithful quarrel, make peace between them. But if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight the one which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah’s ordinance. Then, if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably. Surely, Allah loves those who act equitably.”(1)

Inevitably, one of the applications of this type of jihād is when a group of people revolt against the just imām of their time. Because he (the imām) is just and truthful but they (the mutineers) have risen against him, it is presumed that the imām is right and not the mutineer. Thus, in this case, one must enter battle in favor of the imām and fight against the mutineer.

Another case (which has caused some difference of opinion among scholars) is the issue of bloody uprisals for the sake of ‘enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil [al-amr bi’l-ma‘rūf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar]. That is in itself another stage with its own levels.

Here he states that a truce or peace comprises of an agreement not to fight, but to live in peace together. However, this truce can only be established on the condition that a specific time frame has been set for the agreement. This issue is raised in jurisprudence if an opposing party can be fought off instinctively. That is to say, if the opposing party consist of polytheists, it is permissible to sign a treaty with them. However, this agreement must not be signed for an indefinite period of time. It should not be “for the time being”. No, “for the time being” is not correct. The period must be definite and specified. For example, for a period of six months, one year, ten years or more, just as the Prophet (s) signed the treaty in Hudaybiyyah for a period of ten years.

He says, “It is permissible only when it includes (insures) advantages for Muslims.”(1) Therefore, peace is allowed if it is in the best interests of the Muslims.(2) If a Muslim deems it advisable to make peace for the time being, then it is permitted and not forbidden. But as we said before, in the case of an obligatory war, for example, in the case when if a Muslim country is under enemy attack, it is obligatory to defend and free the country under any circumstances. Now, if it is in the best interest of the Muslims to sign a peace-treaty with the same invading enemy, must they sign the treaty or not? Muhaqqiq states that if it is in their interests, then it is permissible to continue. However, peace should not be contracted for an indefinite period of time, rather a definite time span should be stipulated in the agreement, since invasion and occupation of a country by the enemy for an unknown period of time cannot be in the interests of the Muslims. If this agreement should be made, then it would mean the end of hostility for a set period of time. So now, when would a peace treaty be in the interest of Muslims?

Muhaqqiq says, “Either due to smallness of their number, in which case they are unable to resist the enemy.(3) (Or because) the fact that they are less in number means that they have less power.”(4)

p: 44

So when they do not have the strength needed and their battle follows a particular objective, then it is advisable to wait for the time being until they have gathered the required power.

Or to the istidhār (obtaining help from others to be stronger) which may be obtained from it.(1)

Therefore, it is advised to cease hostilities in order to gather the required power during this time. This plan ensures reinforcements. Or, to look forward to non-Muslims embrace Islam by discontinuing war and waiting.(2)

Also, a peace treaty is permitted, if as a result of it there are hopes that the opposing party will convert to Islam. This assumption is only valid when the opposing party are non-believers. So, in other words, peace is being made with the conviction that during this set period, the enemy shall be defeated from a spiritual point of view. This was certainly the case with the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty, which we shall soon discuss.

But when there are no advantages for Muslims (in truce) and the Muslims have enough strength, power and ability to overcome the enemy, a truce will not be permissible.(3)

However, if these stated aspects are absent from the situation, then it is not permissible to continue with a peace treaty. This was a discussion about the issue of peace or so-called “truce”. We, therefore, understand that from the Islamic jurisprudencial point of view, peace is not permitted under certain circumstances whether peace refers to signing a treaty or ceasing hostility. Even for this, there are two types of peace which must be considered. Firstly, when the peace we are referring to involves the signing of a peace agreement. This is done when there are two opposing factions and they resolve to sign a treaty, just as was done by the Prophet (s) or even by Imām al-Hasan.

Secondly, when the term ‘peace’ is used, it has the implication of peacefulness and freedom from strife. Of this, scholars have said that it is permissible if the Muslims are unable to show resistance or, in short, there is no avail in fighting. This was the case in the early days of Islam, when Muslims were few in number and scarce. Had they fought, then they would have been eradicated and no remnants of them would have been left.

p: 45

And so scholars state that it is better for Muslims to gather reinforcements and supporters during this time (of peace). However, it would be more advantageous for them to attract the enemy spiritually.

Here I must describe the Prophet’s treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which may be considered as the origin and basis for the peace treaty which was later initiated by Imām al-Hasan.

of the caravan, so that if anyone saw them from afar, they realized that these were pilgrims and not warriors; therefore, not causing for concern. Their clothes and general appearance gave the impression of those on pilgrimage. Therefore, because of the overt nature of this pilgrimage, the news quickly reached the Quraysh clan. Near Mecca, the Prophet was informed that the Quraysh, including women and men, young and old, had come out of Mecca and proclaimed, “By God, we will never let Muhammad enter Mecca.” They threatened to fight against the Muslims, even though month was considered to be sacred. These actions opposed even the customs of the Age of Ignorance. The Prophet went near the camps of the Quraysh and ordered the Muslims to dismount there. Messengers and couriers were exchanged between the two parties constantly. At first, several messengers arrived, one after the other, demanding to know why the Muslims had come. The Prophet only replied, “I am a pilgrim and have come here for pilgrimage. I have no other business here. I will perform my pilgrimage and return.” Every messenger who was sent, witnessing the state of the Muslims, would return and inform the Quraysh that the Prophet had no intention of fighting. However, they did not accept this and so the Muslims, including the Prophet himself, decided to enter Mecca, knowing that it might lead to conflict. The Muslims asserted that they did not wish to fight, but if they were attacked, then they would fight back. Bay‘at al-Ridwān took place there and then. They again gave an oath of allegiance for this purpose, until a representative from the Quraysh came and said that they were willing to sign a peace treaty with the Muslims. The Prophet replied that he was prepared for this. Messages sent by the Prophet were those of peace. To a couple of the messenger, he would say,

“Woe to the state of the Quraysh! War has finished them. What do they want from me? Leave me be with the rest of the people. I will either be destroyed, in which case what they want will be fulfiled by others, or I will prevail, which is again to their advantage, since I am one of the Quraysh. This would be an honor for them.”

However, this was not beneficial. They insisted on contracting a peace agreement, and thus sent a man named Suhayl ibn ‘Amr to conclude an agreement, according to which the Prophet would return back to Medina for the year, yet he would have the right to come back during the following year and stay for three days in Mecca, perform his ‘umrah and return. The other clauses which had been included in the peace treaty were not advantageous for the Muslims. According to one clause of the peace treaty, should one member of the Quraysh clan join the Muslims, they (the Quraysh) will maintain the

p: 47

right to retrieve him. However, should one of the Muslims flee to join the Quraysh, they (the Muslims) would hold no such right and so forth (this clause contained other ponderous conditions). In return Muslims would obtain freedom in Mecca and would no longer be under pressure. All the efforts of the Prophet were concentrated upon those final words, for that reason he accepted every ponderous condition in the treaty in order to reach this objective alone. The treaty was signed. Many of the Muslims, however, became irritated and said, “O Messenger of Allah! This is a disgrace for us. We have come all the way to Mecca, yet now we must return? Is this correct? No we must definitely go (to Mecca).” The Prophet (s), however, replied, “No, this is the treaty and we have signed it.” The Prophet then ordered for the sacrifices to be made right there and then. He then said, “Come and shave my head,” as a symbol of exiting ihrām. At first, the Muslims were reluctant to go through with this, but later they accepted, albeit with some exasperation. The one who expressed his irritation more than others was ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb. He came to Abū Bakr and said, “Is he not a prophet?” He responded, “Yes.” Then He asked, “Are we not Muslims? Are they not non-believers?” Abū Bakr replied, “Yes.” He asked again, “Then what is this situation? The Prophet had seen in his dream that he had entered Mecca with the Muslims and had conquered it. He had narrated this dream for the Muslims. Thus, they went to the Prophet and said, “Had you not seen in your dream that we will enter Mecca?” He said, “Yes.” They then said, “What happened then? Why did your dream not come true?” The Prophet (s) replied, “I did not see in my dream and never told you that we would enter Mecca this year. I have dreamt and my dream is true. We will enter Mecca.” They said, “What kind of treaty is this that if one of their members should come to us they would have the right to take him back, yet should one of our members join them, we are not permitted to go and retrieve him?” He replied, “If one of us wishes to join them, then he will be a Muslim who has become an apostate and thus is of no use to us. If a Muslim who has become an apostate leaves, we will never go after him and if one of them becomes a Muslim and wants to join us, we shall tell him to go back, at the moment you Muslims are in the state of being oppressed, Allah shall open a way for you.” The Prophet gave into some extremely bizarre conditions.

Suhayl ibn ‘Amr had a son, who had become a Muslim and was among the Muslim army. When this agreement was signed, another one of his sons ran away from the Quraysh to join the Muslims. As soon as he arrived, Suhayl said, “Now that the treaty has been signed, he must be returned to me.” Thus, the Prophet said to him (Suhayl’s son) whose name was Abū Jundal, “Go! Allah will open a way for you oppressed people as well.” The poor fellow, being very distressed, cried out,

p: 48

“Muslims! Do not let them take me among the non-believers and turn me away from my religion.” The Muslims became very troubled and said, “Oh Messenger of God! Please give us permission not to let them take this one.” The Prophet replied, “No, he must be returned as well.” Interestingly, when the peace treaty was concluded, Muslims found freedom and were able to preach Islam freely, in a period of less than one year; the number that had converted to Islam from among the Quraysh was by many times greater than those who had not converted to Islam in the past twenty years. Therefore, the situation changed to the benefit of the Muslims. Afterwards, the terms of the agreement were destroyed by the Quraysh unprompted and an enthusiasm for practicality and spirituality appeared in Mecca.

A pleasant story has been narrated from one of the Muslims, about a man by the name Abū Basīr who lived in Mecca. He was a very brave and strong man. He fled from Mecca to Medina. In accordance with the agreement, the Quraysh sent two people to take him back. When they arrived and demanded for him the Prophet agreed to give him back. No matter how much this man begged the Prophet to prevent them from taking him, insisting that they will turn him away from his religion if he goes back, the Prophet still said, “No, we have made an agreement. It is not part of our religion to go against the agreement. Allah will open a path for you as well.” He was escorted back unarmed, by guards, who carried weapons themselves. They reached Dhū al-Hulayfah near Masjid al-Harām where they became engaged in the sacred pilgrimage [muhrim]. This place is situated seven kilometres from Medina. Here, they stopped to rest under a shade. One of them was holding his sword in his hand, when a man (named Abū-Basīr) commented that the guard’s sword seemed to be of very good quality and asked if he may be allowed to inspect it. The guard offered him the sword. As soon as Abū Basīr took hold of the sword, he killed the guard. While the first guard was dying, the other fled like the wind back to Medina. When the other guard reached Medina, the Prophet said, “There seems to be some fresh news!” He said, “Yes, your friend killed my friend.” Shortly after, Abū Basīr returned, “O Messenger of Allah! You have kept your side of the agreement. Your agreement stated that if one of their people escaped, you will return him and so you did. Now you have fulfilled your terms, please leave me be.” He then went to the Red

Sea and found a spot which he located as a centre. As soon as the Muslims, who were suffering under torture in Mecca, found out the Prophet does not provide shelter to those who escape and Abū Basīr had escaped to the Red Sea and established a centre there, they left to join him one by one. Gradually, the people of this community grew up to seventy people and were able to form their own defence force. The Quraysh

p: 49

could no longer regulate them in anyway. Therefore, they were obliged to write to the Prophet saying, “We no longer wish for them to be returned to us. We request you to inform them that we have not desire for them to come back. Please write to them and tell them to come to Medina and not cause us any more trouble. We will disregard this term from our agreement.” And so, they abdicated.

In any case, this peace agreement was for the purpose of preparing the mentality of the people for what was to come. Subsequently, this is what followed. As was mentioned before, the Muslims started receiving more freedom in Mecca and gradually the people started to accept Islam in groups, until finally, the prohibitions were removed entirely.

Now let’s study the circumstances at the time of Imām al-Hasan and Imām al-Husayn to determine whether or not their situations truly differed to such an extent that had Imām al-Hasan been in Imām al-Husayn’s position, he would have acted in the same manner and likewise, had Imām al-Husayn been in Imām al-Hasan’s position, he too would have agreed to go through with the peace Imām al-Hasan agreed to. Undoubtedly, this would have been the case. I would just like to point out our response to the question, should someone ask whether Islam is a religion of peace or a religion of war, we shall refer to the Qur’an for this purpose. In the Qur’an, we have instructions on both war and peace. Numerous verses [āyah] are related to the issue of war with the non-believers,

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed Allah does not like transgressors.”(1)

And likewise, about the subject of peace, the Qur’an states,

“And if they incline toward peace, then you (too) incline toward it and trust in Allah. Indeed He is the Hearing, the All-knowing.”(2)

One verse of the Qur’an reads,

“And reconciliation is better.”(3)

Therefore, which is the religion of Islam? Islam does not accept peace as a stagnant principle, claiming that peace must prevail in all situations and that

p: 50

hostility is not an option. It also does not accept war in every situation. Peace and war, in any case, depend upon the circumstances, which mean that they depend upon the causes that they take effect from.

Muslims, whether during the time of the Prophet (s) Imām ‘Alī, Imām al-Hasan and Imām al-Husayn, or during the time of the other Imāms or during our time, must maintain Islam and the rights of Muslims as their main objective. They must determine whether the overall circumstances call for fighting or abandonment of hostilities. Therefore, the issue of labelling Islam as a religion of peace or war is not correct. Each is relative in its own circumstance.

in Islam: jihād and peace)? Imām al-Hasan made peace when he was supposed to make peace and Imām al-Husayn chose jihād when he deemed it necessary? This is the same for Imām ‘Alī and the Prophet where their cases are definite. The case of the Prophet specially requires no more discussion because the Prophet made peace in one place and fought in another.

Question: Are there disagreements between the jurisprudence of our Sunnī brothers and the Shī‘ah jurisprudence in the case of jihād? If so, what are these disagreements? The other question is on the topic of conditions for jihād. You mentioned that jihād was necessary when dominance over self or property was being sought. What about the case of dominance over intellect? Can there be such a cause for jihād? If so, what form of jihād will that be?

Answer: I have to study this issue in the Sunnī jurisprudence. I shall have a look and let you know. I know this much in brief that their conditions are not much different to ours and if there are any differences, it is on our part. This is because we have certain limitations that they do not. This is in the case when the presence of an infallible imām or his specified representative is necessary for certain cases. They do not have such a condition. The second issue you raised in your question was not mentioned in ancient jurisprudence, because it essentially is a new phenomenon. We must pause on this to see what the general principles of command for this phenomena are and thus from a regulatory point of view, this matter must be endeavored other than this, such an issue was never raised in the olden times. ?

p: 52

the circumstances of Imām al-Hasan and the circumstances of Imām al-Husayn (‘a) that Imām al-Husayn decided not to make peace? There are many differences, the aspects of which I will tell you about and you can judge for yourselves later.

(which he did), his death would be an honorable one, which in fact became so. He objected to the situation, the government of the time and the spread of corruption. He believed that they did not qualify for the task and during the passed twenty years they proved what kind of people they really were. He remained persistent upon his word until the very end. For this reason, specifically, his uprising was and continues to be considered honorable and courageous.

Form this point of view, the circumstances of Imām al-Hasan are exactly contrary to those of Imām al-Husayn: he was someone who was placed in the position of governor who faced objections from an opposition. As mentioned before, if he were to be killed, his death would mean the death of a rightful leader. This in itself was an issue which even Imām al-Husayn refrained from: that no one in the position of prophet or a vice regent must be killed. We see that Imām al-Husayn is not willing to get killed in Mecca, Why? He said: it would be the respect for

Mecca that would be destroyed. They will kill me anyway. Why should they kill me in such a place of sanctity, which would only cause disparagement to the House of Allah?

We see that during the rebellion against ‘Uthmān,(1) ‘Alī is trying extremely hard to respond to their demands in order to stop ‘Uthmān from being killed (this has also been mentioned in the Nahj al-Balāghah). He defended ‘Uthmān to such an extent that once he said, “I have defended ‘Uthmān so much that I have fears of being sinful for it.”(2)

But why did he defend ‘Uthmān? Was he a supporter of ‘Uthmān as a person? No. The extent of his defence was explained when he said: I fear that you will be ‘the assassinated caliph’. It would be a disgrace for the Muslim World to have a caliph of the Muslims killed during his time at rule. It will be considered as disrespect to the caliphate as a whole. This is why ‘Alī said that they have lawful demands. He advised ‘Uthmān to fulfil their demands so that they go back to where they came from. On the other hand, ‘Alī did not want to give the rebels the expression that they should go about their business, forget about the truth and not complain about a situation that was

p: 55

getting worse by the day, even though it would inevitably mean more power for a ruler who was being obdurate. Of course, he would never say these words and he should not have. But at the same time, he did not want ‘Uthmān to get killed while he was still in power. At the end, in spite of ‘Alī’s desire this took place.

If Imām al-Hasan had resisted then, from what is apparent from history, the final result would have been getting killed, which means the death of the Imām and the Caliph in power. Imām al-Husayn’s getting killed was the death of a protester. This is one difference between Imām al-Hasan’s circumstances and Imām al-Husayn’s. The second difference was in connection with the weakening of Iraqi forces, i.e. the forces in Kūfah, which is true. However, this did not mean that they were destroyed completely and if Mu‘āwiyah had attacked, he would have conquered Kūfah in one swoop, which is incomparable to the ease and simplicity the Prophet conquered Mecca with. Numerous companions of Imām al-Hasan had betrayed him and the number of hypocrites in Kūfah had risen and so Kūfah was in a chaotic situation, which was the cause of many historical incidences.

One of the biggest disasters that took place in Kūfah was the appearance of the Kharijites. ‘Alī considered the reason for their appearance to be the unrestricted conquers that took place one after the other, without the corresponding training and discipline that were required after such conquers. People who had not been disciplined or had not become acquainted with the depth of Islamic teachings had come among the Muslims, yet claimed to be better Muslims than Muslims themselves.

Nevertheless, disunity had appeared in Kūfah. We can all confess to the fact that the hands of the one who is not bound to principles of humanity, religion, faith or morals are more open to different options or methods than the hands of the one who does abides by such principles

Mu‘āwiyah had founded the establishment of an enormous base in Kūfah. He would constantly send spies to Kūfah who would either distribute a lot of money in order to buy people’s consciences or spread false rumours in order to ruin their spirits.

All of this put aside, if Imām al-Hasan had resisted and at the same time prepared a massive army to confront Mu‘āwiyah—an army of about thirty to forty thousand, or may be as some historians claim even one hundred thousand so he could match Mu‘āwiyah’s huge army of one hundred and fifty thousand—what would have been the outcome? In Siffīn, when the Iraqi

p: 56

forces were better and more powerful, Imām ‘Alī fought Mu‘āwiyah for eighteen months. After those eighteen months, when he was about to be defeated, Mu‘āwiyah and his army carried out that treacherous act of raising the Qur’an on spears. If Imām al-Hasan was to fight, a war would have taken place which would have lasted for many years between these two enormous groups of Muslims of Iraq and Damascus. Furthermore, thousands of people would have been killed without achieving a final goal.

As history shows, there was no chance for them to defeat Mu‘āwiyah and in all probability Imām al-Hasan would have been defeated in the end. What kind of honor is there in fighting for years, causing thousands of people to get killed from both sides and a final outcome of either weariness for both sides and going back where they came from or Imām al-Hasan’s defeat and later being killed in the position of vice-regent.

Imām al-Husayn, however, had a troop which did not exceed seventy two men. He even dismisses them saying, “Leave if you want to, I will stay on my own.” But they resisted until they got killed. They were killed with one hundred percent glory. Therefore, these two differences have been named for the time being:

1. Imām al-Hasan was in the seat of caliphate and if he was to be killed, the caliph would have been killed.

2. Imām al-Hasan’s army did not equalize Mu‘āwiyah’s and the outcome of initiating this war would have been a continuation of this war for a long time, large numbers of Muslims getting killed, without achieving the right final purpose.

They requested for Imām al-Husayn to pledge his oath of allegiance. Taking this into consideration, Imām al-Husayn’s response was only, “No, I will not swear allegiance. And he did not. His response was negative.”

What about Imām al-Hasan? Did Mu‘āwiyah ask Imām al-Hasan to swear allegiance to him, when he had decided to make peace with Mu‘āwiyah? (Swearing allegiance means acceptance of government.) No. On the contrary, one of the conditions of the peace treaty was that there should be no requests for oaths of allegiance. Apparently, historians have also claimed that neither Imām al-Hasan nor anyone from his people, including Imām al-Husayn, his other brothers, companions or other followers of Imām al-Hasan gave their oaths of allegiance to Mu‘āwiyah. The issue of giving oath of allegiance was never put forward. Therefore, the element of swearing in allegiance which was one of the issues that forced Imām al-Husayn’s resistance did not exist in Imām al-Hasan’s case.

The second element causing the uprising of Imām al-Husayn was the Kūfah invitation as a prepared city. After twenty years of toleration under Mu‘āwiyah’s rule, torture and oppression, the people of Kūfah had truly become desperate. You can even see some people who believed(1) that Kūfah had become a one-hundred-percent prepared city and a sudden course of events transformed the situation.

The people of Kūfah wrote eighteen thousand letters to Imām al-Husayn announcing their preparation. However, when Imām al-Husayn finally came, they did not help him. Everyone, of course, says, “Then, the grounds were not ready completely.” However, from a historical point of view, if Imām al-Husayn had not taken those letters into consideration, then history would have found him guilty. Historians would have said that he lost a perfectly prepared opportunity, whereas in Kūfah during the time of Imām al-Hasan, the situation was the opposite. Kūfah was tired and irritated. Kūfah was depressed and disturbed. Thousands of disagreements could be found there. As we see, Kūfah was the city about which Imām ‘Alī, toward the end of his government, constantly complained about. He complained about its people and their lack of preparation. He always prayed, “Oh Allah! Please take me away from these people and give them the government that they deserve so that they may later realize the value of my government. When I say a ‘prepared Kūfah’, I mean that an ultimatum had been issued to Imām al-Husayn.”

p: 58

Unlike others I do not want to say that Kūfah was truly prepared or that Imām al-Husayn (‘a) was truly counting on Kūfah. No. The ultimatum issued to Imām al-Husayn (‘a) took place in a situation that even if the grounds were not fully prepared, he could not disregard this ultimatum. What about the case of Imām al-Hasan? In Imām al-Hasan’s case the opposite of issuing an ultimatum had taken place. The people of Kūfah had already shown that they were not ready.

The situation inside Kūfah was so bad that even Imām al-Hasan avoided most of Kūfah’s people. He would wear his armour under his cloth whenever he came out, even for prayers. This was because the Kharijites and Mu‘āwiyah’s protégés were plentiful and there was a danger of him getting killed. Once when he was praying, he was shot but because he was wearing his armour the shooting did not take affect. Other than this, he would have been murdered.

Thus, an ultimatum was issued to Imām al-Husayn by the invitations from the people of Kūfah and because it was issued Imām al-Husayn had to considered it. But Imām al-Hasan’s circumstances differed in that the people of Kūfah had almost announced their lack of preparation.

The third element involved in Imām al-Husayn’s uprising was the aspect of ‘enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil’ [al-amr bi’l-ma‘rūf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar]. That is to say, despite the fact that they were demanding for allegiance from Imām al-Husayn, his reluctance to do so, regardless of the fact that the ultimatum had been issued by the invitations from the people of Kūfah, and his announcement in response of his willingness, this was another element which caused Imām al-Husayn to rise up. This means that if they had not invited him or had asked him to swear in allegiance with them, he would have still revolted for the sake of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. Since Mu‘āwiyah acquired the caliphate, whatever he carried out was against Islam. His government was tyrannical and oppressive. His oppression and hostility was known by all and can still be seen up to this day. He changed Islamic rules. He was embezzling and misusing the public treasury. He had shed the blood of respectable people and so forth. The worse sin he committed was choosing his alcoholic, gambler son as his ‘crown prince’ and forcefully gave him his position. It is an exigency on us to object to them. As the Prophet says, “If anyone sees an oppressive ruler with these indications and does not object to the ruler’s sayings or actions, he has committed a sin that deserves the same punishment Allah assigns for the oppressive ruler.”(1)

p: 59

There is no discussion, however, in the fact that this was virtually the case during the time of Mu‘āwiyah. Imām al-Hasan had no doubt about Mu‘āwiyah’s identity. During Imām ‘Alī’s time, Mu‘āwiyah objected and said that he only wanted to take vengeance for the blood of ‘Uthmān, but now he says, “I am willing to follow the Book of Allah one hundred percent, the customs of the Prophet (s) and the path of the previous caliphs. I will not designate a successor for my self. After me, the caliphate is for Hasan ibn ‘Alī and even after him for Husayn ibn ‘Alī.” This means that he confessed to their rights upon the caliphate. “They just have to submit the affairs” (the word in the clause of contract was ‘submit the affairs’), which meant bequeath affairs to me. “This is all I am saying. Imām al-Hasan will step aside for the time being and hand over the job to me and I shall undertake it following these conditions.” He sends a signed blank piece of paper and says, “Any condition Hasan ibn ‘Alī desires can be put down here and I will accept it. If I do not follow the rules of Islam completely, then I would no longer want to have this position. Up to then, people had not had any experience the like of Mu‘āwiyah.”

Now let us assume that the opposite had been presented to us by history. In a similar way Mu‘āwiyah sends a signed paper to Imām al-Hasan and accepted such pledges saying, “You agree to step aside. What would you want the caliphate for? I will administrate your desires. The only issue remaining is whether the one who is going to execute the Book of Allah and the divine customs will be you or me? Do you want to start a bloody battle because you want to be the one who is going to do this? If Imām al-Hasan had not submitted under such conditions and continued to go through with the war, one hundred thousand of people would have been killed. There would have been much destruction and in the end Imām al-Hasan himself would have been killed. Today’s history would have blamed Imām al-Hasan and said that such a situation demanded for peace (and he should have made peace). The Prophet also made peace in many instances. After all, one must make peace in some circumstances. Yes, if we were present, then, we would have said that this was nothing other than Mu‘āwiyah wanting himself to be the ruler. All right, he can rule. He is not asking you to accept him as a caliph. He does not want you to call him the Commander of the Faithful(1) nor does he want you to swear allegiance with him. Even if you would have said that the life of all Shī‘ahs was in danger, he would sign that all the followers (Shī‘ahs) of your father are

p: 60

under protection and I shall cross out all the resentment I have from them since Siffīn. From a financial point of view, I am willing to cancel the taxes of parts of this country and allocate it to you so you can manage yourself and your followers as well as your relatives, so that you would not be in need of us financially.

If Imām al-Hasan had not accepted peace under these conditions he would have been condemned by history. He agreed and when he did, history condemned the other side. Because of his jittery Mu‘āwiyah accepted all these conditions. The outcome was his victory from political aspect, showing that he was one hundred percent a man of politics and that there was nothing but diplomacy in his nature. Therefore, as soon as he acquired the seat of power and the position of vice-regent, he abandoned all the conditions in the contract he agreed to by not abiding by a single one of them. By doing so he proved his devious personality. Even when he came to Kūfah, he bluntly said, “Oh people of Kūfah! I never fought with you to make you pray, fast, go to Hajj or pay Islamic taxes. I fought you so that I could be your chief and leader.” He later realized that this statement was not to his advantage and therefore continued, “I know that you will fulfil these duties yourselves and that there is no need for me to insist on them.”

One of the conditions on the contract was that after him the vice regency belonged to Hasan ibn ‘Alī and after him to al-Husayn ibn ‘Alī. But after seven or eight years passed from the start of his government he started raising the issue of Yazīd’s succession to throne after him.

According to the contract he agreed to leave the followers of ‘Alī in peace. However, he inconvenienced them greatly before causeing problems between them.

What, in fact, was difference between Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Uthmān? There is no difference other than that ‘Uthmān, more or less, saved his position among Muslims (non-Shī‘ahs) as a great caliph who, of course, made some mistakes. As for Mu‘āwiyah, he only became famous as a scheming politician. The jurists’ view about Mu‘āwiyah and the ones who came after him among the row caliphs who came after the Prophet (s) to execute Islam is that they deviated completely from the Islamic route and got labelled as kings, monarchs and princes.

Therefore, when we compare the situation of Imām al-Hasan to that of Imām al-Husayn, we will see that they are incomparable in every way.

p: 61

The last issue that I want to talk about is the fluent logic and the sharp blade that Imām al-Husayn (‘a) possessed. What was that?

If anyone sees an oppressive ruler who is doing such and such (i.e. being domineering) and keeps silent about it, he is considered sinful by Allah. This was, however, not applicable to Imām al-Hasan. What was actually offered to Imām al-Hasan was that if he were to follow up such an issue, they would react by doing such and such. Thus, by saying that “they will do such and such” is different to something already being carried out by them and which now only serves as evidence against them.

This is why it has been said that Imām al-Hasan’s peace prepared the grounds for Imām al-Husayn’s uprising. It was necessary for Imām al-Hasan to step aside for a while so the hidden and concealed identity of the Umayyad Dynasty became evident for the people. Therefore, the consequent uprising is more justified in history.

After this peace contract, when it became obvious that Mu‘āwiyah was not bound to any of the conditions of the contract, some Shī‘ahs came to Imām al-Hasan and said, “This peace contract is annulled.” They were right. Because Mu‘āwiyah had breached it; therefore, come and revolt. He said, “No uprising will come after Mu‘āwiyah.” This means he gave more time so that their staus was made more obvious, then the time for uprising would have come. This sentence means if Imām al-Hasan was alive after Mu‘āwiyah and present in the time of Imām al-Husayn, he too would have risen against him most definitely.

Therefore, according to the three above-mentioned elements, the uprising of Imām al-Husayn was serious, lawful and correct. Imām al-Hasan’s situation, however, was completely different and contradictory. Allegiance had been demanded from Imām al-Husayn but never demanded from Imām al-Hasan (allegiance itself was an issue for Imām al-Husayn). An ultimatum was issued by the people of Kūfah. People claimed that Kūfah had awakened after twenty years. They claimed that after twenty years under Mu‘āwiyah’s rule, Kūfah was not the same as it was before. They had now become grateful to ‘Alī, grateful to Imām al-Hasan and to Imām al-Husayn. When the name of Imām al-Husayn was mentioned among the people of Kūfah, they shed tears. Their tree is now bearing its fruit and the grounds have become green. Come! The grounds are completely prepared. These invitations were an ultimatum to Imām al-Husayn. This was the opposite for Imām al-Hasan.

p: 62

Anyone who saw the status of Kūfah, he/she would say Kūfah is not at all prepared.

The third issue were the corrupt acts of the government (I do not mean the corruptness of the ruler, no, that is another issue and the corrupt acts of the government is another). Mu‘āwiyah still has to show his real self and prepare the grounds for enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil (i.e. for uprising) or produce the so-called obligation. This, however, was completely the case in the time of Imām al-Husayn.

al-Hasan had not agreed to leave power to Mu‘āwiyah so that he may do whatever he wished for as long as he wished. They had agreed that the peace treaty would be in force “until Mu‘āwiyah was still in power”. This peace is for that given period and did not include the time after Mu‘āwiyah. Therefore, Mu‘āwiyah did not have the right to plan for anything ahead of his time or to choose himself a successor.

3) Mu‘āwiyah had made cursing and profanity towards Imām ‘Alī (‘a) a custom in Syria. It was mentioned in the text of the contract that he should put a stop to this, “Mu‘āwiyah has to stop cursing ‘Alī in his prayers and can only evoke him in goodness.” This was signed with commitment by Mu‘āwiyah. They propagandized against ‘Alī and said, “We curse ‘Alī because he (God-forbid) digressed from the religion of Islam.” The individual who signed this contract has agreed to this much at least: if you call ‘Alī somebody worthy of cursing, then why did you pledge to evoke him by anything but goodness? And if he is worthy of cursing and what you declare is right, why do you act in this way? Afterwards, he even breached this clause and this carried on for ninety years.

4) The Muslims’ treasury which had a balance of five million dirhams was an exception and was not included in the submission of government. Mu‘āwiyah had agreed to send Imām al-Hasan two million dirhams every year. This was proposed so that the Shī‘ahs were financially capable to fulfil their own needs and that if they did have any demands, they could be implemented by Imām al-Hasan and Imām al-Husayn.

“To give privileges of gifts and donations to the Banī Hāshim and divide one million dirhams among relatives of the martyrs who were killed alongside Imām ‘Alī in the Battle of Siffīn and Jamal, these must be reimbursed from the expenses of “Dār Abjard”. Dār Abjard is a region near Shīrāz from where taxes and expenses were made exclusive to Banī Hāshim.

5) “People in every corner of Allah’s land, Syria, Iraq, Yemen or Hijāz should be safe and sound. Black and red should both benefit from security and must disregard their blunders.” This clause was intended for the spitefulness that existed in the past because these people had in fact fought Mu‘āwiyah in Siffīn. “And none should be reprimanded for his previous mistakes. Also, grudges must not be held against the people of Iraq; ‘Alī’s companions must be safe and sound wherever they are and from among them none should be vexed or be fearful for their life, property, family and children. No one should stalk them or injure them. Everyone should be given

p: 64

his/her rights. Whatever is in the hands of ‘Alī’s companions should not be taken away from them. No one should attempt to murder Hasan ibn ‘Alī, his brother or anyone from the Prophet’s (s) Household, overtly or covertly.”

These conditions, especially conditions three and five which were about blasphemy against ‘Alī, were mentioned because when Mu‘āwiyah promised to follow the Book of Allah and the conducts of the Prophet and the path of the previous caliphs has this naturally hidden in it. Nevertheless, they knew that Mu‘āwiyah paid special attention to these issues and that he would act contrary to them in private. So, they added another point to the conditions of the contract, “And in no Islamic land shall a threat or intimidation be towards them.” Therefore, he would not be able to use any justification for the acts that he committed. They also wanted to show that: we (the Ahl al-Bayt) are cynical towards your way from the very beginning. This was a collection of the conditions and clauses of this contract.

Mu‘āwiyah had a representative by the name of ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Āmir who he sent to Imām al-Hasan with the blank letter he had signed and said, “I shall agree with any conditions you set. Imām al-Hasan put down all these conditions in the peace treaty. Later, Mu‘āwiyah read these conditions while saying in many parts I take Allah and His Messenger as my witnesses: if I do not do such and such, then so and so, and they signed the contract.

Therefore, it does not seem that there were any problems with Imām al-Hasan’s peace during the circumstances of his time. Comparing Imām al-Hasan’s peace in the position of leader and Imām al-Husayn’s uprising as a protestor is not correct. Therefore, it seems that if Imām al-Hasan had not been there during that time and Imām al-Husayn had become the caliph after ‘Alī’s martyrdom, he too would have signed the peace treaty. Likewise, if Imām al-Hasan was alive after Mu‘āwiyah, he would have rebelled against him like Imām al-Husayn. These all resulted from the differences in their circumstances.

simply. Yes, if Imām ‘Alī had been in such a situation as Imām al-Hasan’s, he too would have made peace. The same also goes if there was a possibility of death in the seat of leadership. But we are aware that Imām ‘Alī’s circumstances differed greatly with the situation of Imām al-Hasan. Social turmoil had broken out toward the end of Imām ‘Alī’s time; the war of Siffīn was progressing and had the Kharijites not divided the society from within, ‘Alī would have definitely become victorious. There is discussion on that issue. However, when you asked, ‘Why did Imām al-Hasan put up with Mu‘āwiyah’s governance when Imām ‘Alī had refused to accept his rule even for a day’, then you are mixing the two issues. Imām ‘Alī was not willing to accept Mu‘āwiyah as his deputy or as someone chosen by him even for one day. However, not only does Imām al-Hasan Imām ‘Alī was not willing to accept Mu‘āwiyah as his deputy not want to place Mu‘āwiyah as his deputy, but he wants to step aside completely. Imām al-Hasan made peace by stepping aside and not being committed. No clause in the contract mentioned anything about ruling. There was no mention of ‘Alī’s name or a successor for the Prophet (s). They agreed for Imām al-Hasan to step down and that Mu‘āwiyah could take over under the condition that this person, who under no circumstances qualifies for this task, did the job properly. Thus, there are many differences between the two. ‘Alī said that he was not willing that a person like Mu‘āwiyah represents him somewhere or be his deputy. Imām al-Hasan was also reluctant for this to happen and the conditions in the peace treaty did not conclude anything other than this.

Question: Had ‘Alī made mention in his will of Imām al-Hasan about anything regarding how to deal with Mu‘āwiyah?

Answer: I do not remember coming across anything as such. But the situation seemed clear. Even if there is nothing in the historical texts, the state of affairs was clear. ‘Alī himself supported fighting Mu‘āwiyah until the end. Even though towards the end ‘Alī’s situation had become chaotic, what disturbed ‘Alī the most was Mu‘āwiyah’s state, therefore he believed that Mu‘āwiyah must be dealt with and destroyed.

‘Alī’s martyrdom became a new obstacle for fighting Mu‘āwiyah. In one of ‘Alī’s famous sermons in the Nahj al-Balāghah, when ‘Alī invites people to jihād and remembers his loyal companions, he says, “Where are the brothers of mine who traversed the path of truth and left the world while joining the

p: 66

Truth. Where is ‘Ammār? Where is the son of Tayhān? And, where is the man called Dhū al-Shahādatayn?”(1)

And then he cried. He read this sermon during Friday Prayers and invited people to move. It is written that it was not before the next Friday that he was struck down by a sword and martyred.

Initially, Imām al-Hasan decided to fight Mu‘āwiyah but he later changed his mind and made peace. This was when he realized the apparent lack of preparation in his companions and the internal conflicts. Imām al-Hasan realized that this would be a disgraceful battle. Going to war with such army would be disgraceful and would cause shame. It was in “Sabath” that one of his own companions hit his foot with a spear.

One of the advantages of Imām al-Husayn’s movement was that he created a strong religious core of men who had been trained to resist the hardships that they faced. There is no record in history shows any of joining the enemy’s army. However, it has been mentioned in history that a large group from the enemy’s army joined them in the event of ‘Āshūrā. This means there was no one in Imām al-Husayn’s army who showed weakness other than one or maybe two. His name was al-Dhahhāk ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Mashriqī. When he first came to Imām al-Husayn’s army, he told Imām al-Husayn that he would joint them under the condition that he stays until his presence brought use for Imām al-Husayn and his army. “However, the instant I realize that my presence ceases to bring you an ounce of good, I shall leave,” he continued. He set this condition and Imām al-Husayn accepted. He was there until the last moments of the day of ‘Āshūrā, but then he went up to Imām al-Husayn and said, “According to the condition I set, I can now be dismissed, because I feel that my presence is of no use to you.” The Imām said, “If you want to go, you may go.” He owned an excellent running horse. He mounted on the horseback and whipped the horse to get the horse prepared. Imām al-Husayn’s army was completely surrounded, therefore, in order to leave he focused on a point and attacked it. As soon as the army broke apart he ran away on his horse. A group of Mu‘āwiyah’s men tried to follow and he was almost about to get caught. However, one of the people in that group, who happened to be acquainted with him, told the others to let him go. He told them that he only wanted to flee and not fight. Other than this, no one showed weakness, unlike Imām al-Hasan’s men who showed weakness from the very start. Therefore, if the Imām had not made peace, death would have

p: 67

been associated with stigmatization from his companion’s. These therefore are different.

What I want to say is that both Imām ‘Alī and Imām al-Hasan initially intended to fight; however, the circumstances which later appeared in Kūfah caused the Imām to rethink his decision of going through with war. The Imām even marched the little number of people that had joined his army out of the city. He told them to go to Nukhaylah in Kūfah. He read a sermon and invited the people. When his sermon was finished no one showed a positive response until when ‘Uday ibn Hātam got up, reproached the people and then told them that he was leaving. He had one thousand people with him. Then, other people started to leave. Imām al-Hasan also went to Nukhaylah in Kūfah. He stayed there for ten days. This time a large crowd joined him but again showed weakness there. Mu‘āwiyah and his people gave money to a group of their chiefs to make them leave Nukhaylah; another group in another way and so forth. The Imām then realized that the grounds for an honorable fight were not prepared anymore.

Question: When you say, “If Imām al-Hasan had not made peace, then history would have blamed him, claiming that even though he could fit any condition in the peace treaty, he did not do so,” does not sound right. I say this because people considered the arrival of that signed blank piece of paper nothing but a fraud. It meant that Imām al-Hasan could write whatever he wanted. Mu‘āwiyah would still not keep his word. People had come to know Mu‘āwiyah during the time of Imām ‘Alī (‘a).

Answer: It just so happens that Mu‘āwiyah could have used a different con with that signed paper which was to see whether the conditions set by Imām al-Hasan abided by Islam or not. Because Mu‘āwiyah wanted to be sure of what Imām al-Hasan wanted both for the sake of his own position and for the sake of veracity (both Imām al-Hasan and Mu‘āwiyah wanted this to happen). To whose benefit were these conditions, to his benefit or to the benefit of the Muslims? We see that all the conditions were to the advantage of the Muslims and that Imām al-Hasan could not do anything other than this. You say that people perceived this as a fraud. People at the time actually thought to themselves: what a good human he is! And would say to Imām al-Hasan give him your conditions, let us see what you want then! Is remaining as caliph your only condition or do you have something else to say? If you do not have anything else to say he is truly willing to bring prosperity to the Muslims.

p: 68

You then said people had become knowledgeable about Mu‘āwiyah in the time of ‘Alī. It just so happens that they considered him as a bad person but a good ruler. This is one of the reasons why the people of Kūfah became weak. They would say that it is true, Mu‘āwiyah is a bad person but he treats the peasant very well. Look at how he treats the Syrians! How happy the Syrians are with him. This is how those who had become knowledgeable about Mu‘āwiyah saw him: he is a bad person but a good ruler. If he becomes the ruler, he would not discriminate between the people of Kūfah and others. Mu‘āwiyah had become especially famous for his patience and forbearance. He had a political forbearance which historians have criticised him for. He could not use his political forbearance in Kūfah. Even if he had, he would have become victorious in spirituality as well as politics. People would go and swear at him but he would only laugh in their faces because he knew that he would later buy them with money. They would say: you cannot find a better person to govern. Now that he is a bad person, let him be a bad person. On this basis, Imām al-Hasan decided on peace as if he was telling people: fine, we brought the person to do the job. Now let’s see if this bad person is going to execute the job as well as you expect him to or not?

Mu‘āwiyah was never known for being a tyrannical ruler. He was only known as an ambitious man and nothing more. During the period when Imām al-Hasan agreed on peace, Mu‘āwiyah’s true colors were introduced, with regards to what kind of ruler he truly was.

Question: Did Imām al-Husayn sign the peace letter or not? And was he at all objective to Imām al-Hasan’s peace agreement?

Answer: I have not come across anything concerning Imām al-Husayn signing the peace treaty, simply because there was no need for Imām al-Husayn’s signature under the peace treaty. At that time Imām al-Husayn was a follower and submissive to Imām al-Hasan. He agreed and committed to whatever Imām al-Hasan did. Even when the group who was against Imām al-Hasan’s peace treaty came to Imām al-Husayn and said: “We do not agree to this peace treaty. May we come and swear allegiance with you?” He said: “No, I will follow whatever my brother Imām al-Hasan does.” It has been proven by history that Imām al-Husayn complied with Imām al-Hasan’s peace treaty. This means that he did not express even the smallest amount of opposition toward his brother over the issue of the peace treaty. When he sees Imām al-Hasan’s determination to peace, he submits. No, no objection has been observed from him.

p: 69

p: 71

of spirituality and the Islam he practiced. What was his type of Islam? What kind of soul was this?

اینهمه آوازها از شه بود گرچه ازحلقوم عبدالله بود

These voices belonged to the king even if they were from the throat of his servant.

When one sees ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn, it is as if he has seen the Prophet in the mihrāb of worship, in the final third of the night in Mount

Hirā’.

One night when the Imām was occupied with his usual routine of worship, one of his children suffered a fall and broke a bone. This needed a bone setter. The family, however, did not interrupt the Imām’s worship. They went and brought the bone setter and wrapped the child’s hand, while he was screaming out of pain. The child’s pain subsided and the episode ended. The next morning, the Imām noticed the child’s bandaged hand and enquired as to what had happened. He was informed of the incident that had taken place the night before while the Imām was consumed in worship. It then became clear that the Imām was in such a state of devotion that his soul had flown towards Allah such that the sound surrounding him in the house had not reached him.

horse back taking on average ten to twelve days to reach Mecca. During this period, the Imām became the servant of the caravan. A certain man who knew the Imām happened to encounter this caravan. As soon as he recognized the Imām, he went to the travellers and asked, “Who is this man whom you have brought to serve you?” They replied, “We do not know. He is a young man from the city. But he is a very good man.” The man replied, “Clearly, you are unaware, because if you knew, you would not place him at your service.” They enquired about the Imām’s identity to which the man replied, “He is ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Alī, the grandchild of the Prophet.” They ran towards the Imām and dropped themselves at the Imām’s feet, “Sir! What was this you have done? We could have been punished by Allah for what we have done! How could we have been so impudent towards you? You must now be our master! Rest here while we serve you! To which the Imām replied, “No, my experience in travelling within a caravan who knows me, tells me that they will not permit me to serve the people of the caravan. That is why I choose to travel with a caravan whose travellers do not know me so that I may obtain the privilege of being of service to Muslims and friends.

replied, “What are you saying? Ya‘qūb [Jacob] had only one Yūsuf [Joseph] and this is how the Qur’an describes his affections,

“And he turned away from them and said: O my sorrow for Yūsuf [Joseph]! And his eyes became on account of the grief that he was supressing.”(1)

I saw eighteen Josephs fall onto the ground before my eyes, one after the other.”

p: 74

that of Zayd ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn and that of Yahyā ibn Zayd ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn took place. Their religious reputation was completely destroyed. I am sure you have heard of the extent of their debauchery. The explicit alcohol drinking and licentiousness rendered their reputation worthless and thus people had developed hatred towards their conduct. Their reign, in wordly terms, was also oppressive. Some of them were committing overwhelming cruelty; for example Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf and a couple of others in Khorāsān. Iranians, in particular, and among them people from Khorāsān (Khorāsān with its old vast understanding) had especially formed a commotion against the Banī Umayyad rulers. A division was created between the religion of Islam and the political affairs of the ruling system. The rising of some ‘Alawīs especially had an exceptional effect on Khorāsān. Even though the insurgents themselves were destroyed, their hype had remarkable influence. Zayd, the son of Imām Zayn al-‘Ābidīn, rose in the periphery of Kūfah. Again, the people of Kūfah entered into agreement with him, swearing allegiance, but the majority of them failed to remain faithful to it. This man was killed in an atrocious way near Kūfah and was treated in a criminal manner. Despite the fact that a friend of his buried him secretly, even stopping the flow in a river to dig his grave in the river bed, before letting the river flow again, a grave-robber managed to report this. A few days later, they arrived, and dragging the body from its resting place, they hung it. They left the body hanging for a long time, until it dried. It is said that the body remained hanging for four years.

Zayd had a young son by the name of Yahyā who rose and was defeated. He went to Khorāsān and had an extraordinary influence on the people of Khorāsān. Even though he was killed in the fight with the Umayyads, he still managed to achieve great popularity. The revelation of such uprisings by the children of the Prophet for the people of Khorāsān had apparently taken place for the first time. News did not travel with such speed as we are used to today. It was actually Yahyā who propagandized the story of Imām al-Husayn and his father Zayd, and other affairs in such a way that historians have written, when the people of Khorāsān rose up against the Umayyad Dynasty, they mourned for Yahyā ibn Zayd for seventy days (this made clear the fact that the revolutions not yielding the desired results would later have their effect). Nevertheless, the grounds for a revolution had been prepared in Khorāsān, but not a fully organized revolution. The presence of extreme discontentment seemed to suffice.

p: 76

“Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed able to give them victory.”(1)

And what a good verse! When the Muslims were in Mecca and under oppression by the Quraysh, they did not have the permission for jihād. It was not until they migrated to Medina that they were finally granted this permission, as oppressed people who were given permission to defend their rights. Jihād in Islam essentially began with this verse which can be found in the Sūrat al-Hajj. The other āyah they set as their slogan was:

“O mankind! Indeed we have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Indeed, the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Indeed, Allah is the All-knowing, the All-aware.”(2)

This was an allegorical remark directed at the Umayyads, who were endorsing Arabism contrary to the Islamic commandments, preferring Arabs over non-Arab which was definitely against the main principles of Islam. They were, in fact, only inviting Arabs to Islam.

There is a saying by the Prophet, I have quoted in the book, “the Mutual Service of Iran and Islam”, which was narrated in a meeting where one of the Prophet’s companions came and said, “I had a dream where white sheep went into black sheep and produced offsprings.” This is how the Prophet (s) interpreted the dream, “Non-Arabs will participate in Islam with you. Their women will get married to your men and their men will get married to your women (my intention is this sentence) I see the day a non-Arab will fight you for Islam just as I see the day you will fight non-Arabs for the sake of Arab. One day you are fighting non-Arabs to convert them to Islam and another day non-Arabs will fight you to turn you back to Islam. This narration can be defined by an uprising.”

The ‘Abbāsīds were organizing their movement with extreme accuracy in a secret excellently ordered system. They had also sent Abū Muslim to Khorāsān and it was not he (Abū Muslim) who formed this uprising. They, the ‘Abbāsīds, had sent missionaries to Khorāsān who were engaged in inviting people.

p: 78

It is not at all clear where Abū Muslim was from. History has not yet been able to prove whether he was originally Arab or Iranian. If he was Iranian, then he should be from either Khorāsān or Isfahān. He was a young slave of twenty-odd when Ibrahīm, the Imām, met him and realized how talented he was. Abū Muslim was sent to Khorāsān where the others were informed that he would be good for this task. Because of his capabilities he managed to overshadow others and take on the leadership of this movement. In political terms Abū Muslim was by all means a capable commander. However, he was an extremely immoral man, having no compassion for humanity. Abū Muslim was similar to Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf. If Arabs are proud of Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf, then we may be proud of Abū Muslim. Hajjāj was a very clever, talented man and a very capable commander. He was of much use to ‘Abd al-Mālik. However, he was also an inhumane person who had no mercy for humankind. They say he killed one hundred and twenty thousand people during his ruling period. They also say that Abū Muslim killed six hundred thousand people. He even killed his best friend for an unimportant reason. He was indifferent towards Arabs and Iranians; therefore, it is difficult to say that his nationalistic view caused these murders.

Imām al-Sādiq does not interfere in these invitations. The ‘Abbāsīds, however, interfered constantly and they had really overlooked their lives when they said, “We either get killed and destroyed or take the caliphate away from them.”

Another issue that will be added here is that the ‘Abbāsīds had two missionaries who were leading this movement. One was in Kūfah, Iraq, and the other was in Khorāsān. The one in Kūfah was someone famously known as “Abū Salmah Khallāl” and the one in Khorāsān was Abū Muslim, who as we mentioned was sent to Khorāsān and progressed there. Abū Salmah was on a level more superior to Abū Muslim. Abū Salmah was given the title “the Minister of Muhammad’s Family” by the ‘Abbāsīds and Abū Muslim “the Prince of Muhammad’s Family”. Abū Salmah was an extremely tactful politician. He was also a well-informed person with excellent oratory skills. One of Abū Muslim’s vices was his jealousy and competing with Abū Salmah. He was provoked to remove Abū Salmah from the moment he took post in Khorāsān. He wrote a couple of letters to ‘Abd al-‘Abbās al-Saffāh accusing Abū Salmah of being a dangerous man and requesting for him to be removed. He also wrote to ‘Abd al-‘Abbās al-Saffāh’s uncles, as well as his other relatives. He kept provoking and plotting. No matter how much Saffāh heard these words, he was still reluctant to go through with it. He said, “Why

p: 79

should I kill someone who is so devoted to me and has served me so much?” They said, “There is something else deep in his heart. He desires to return the caliphate from the ‘Abbāsīd Family to Abū Tālib’s Family.” He replied, “Such a thing has not been proven to be true for me. And even if it was true, it is just an illusion that has appeared to him and a human is not devoid of such dreams and desires.” Abū Muslim failed, no matter how hard he tried to convince Saffāh to kill Abū Salmah. He decided to take out Abū Salmah by himself and he did. Most nights, Abū Salmah would go to Saffāh and converse with him till midnight and return at the end of the night. Abū Muslim hired a group who went and killed Abū Salmah during night time. Because Saffāh’s servants were also among the killers, Abū Salmah’s blood was actually defiled. This event took place in the early years of Saffāh’s ruling. Now, the story quoted and often questioned is as follows:

Dynasty. He wrote a letter with two copies and confidentially sent them to Medina. One was for Imām al-Sādiq and one was for ‘Abd Allāh ibn Hasan ibn ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib.(1) He told the courier, “Give these two letters to these two people in private but do not inform either of them that I have written the same letter for the other one.”(2)

In the letters he wrote, “The caliphate is finally in my hands. I have authority here. I am the one who had turned the events in favor of the ‘Abbāsīd Dynasty. If you agree I will change the situation to your favor.”

And O you who gather logs in the desert,

Do you think you have put them on your own rope?

You do not know however that the logs you have gathered, you have placed on someone else’s rope.

He will then come and pick your log yield.”(1)

What did the Imām mean by this poem? By this poem, the Imām certainly wanted to illustrate a situation where someone is working hard and another person tries to reap their efforts to his own advantage. Now maybe this was his point, “O miserable Abū Salmah, you put all this effort, do not you know that someone else will use the outcome and you will be left with nothing.” The Imām may have been addressing those like himself, because if he accepted Abū Salmah’s request, that meant he would be invited to a deed into which he put a lot of effort but someone else would come and reap the benefits.

There is, of course, nothing else in the text, except that the Imām burnt the letter and read this poem and did not give any other responses.

Abū Salmah’s courier got up and went to ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd and gave the letter to him. ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd became extremely delighted and was thrilled. Mas‘ūdī writes, “He mounted his donkey early in the morning and came to Imām al-Sādiq’s house. The Imām respected him vey much (he was one of the Imām’s cousins). The Imām was aware of the story and said, ‘It seems there is some fresh news.’ He replied, ‘Yes, as fresh as not fitting any description.’

This is the letter I have received from Abū Salmah. He has written that all of our followers in Khorāsān are prepared to return the caliphate to us and has asked me to accept this from him.”

Mas‘ūdī(2) writes, Imām al-Sādiq told him,

p: 82

“Since when are the people of Khorāsān your followers that you say our followers have written? Did you send Abū Muslim to Khorāsān? Did you tell the people of Khorāsān to wear black clothes and make black clothes their slogan?(1) Did you bring those who have come from Khorāsān here?(2) Do you even know any of them?”

‘Abd Allāh became upset by these words (when one really wants something and they give him the glad tidings for it, he will no longer be able to think about other details surrounding a story) and started an argument with Imām al-Sādiq. He said to the Imām, “What are you saying? They want to choose my son, al-Mahdī, for caliph and he is the al-Mahdī of this nation (there is a story to this which I will tell you later on).” The Imām replied, “By Allah he is not the al-Mahdī of the nation and if your son rises, he will definitely get killed.”

‘Abd Allāh became more irritated and out of impudence said, “You say all this out of jealousy.” The Imām responded, “I swear by God that I have nothing in mind except that which is in your interest. This is not to your best interest and it will have no outcome.” The Imām then said to him, “By Allah Abū Salmah has written the exact same letter he wrote to you to me. But I burnt the letter before reading it.” ‘Abd Allāh left the Imām’s house in extreme irritation.

Now these events are coincidence with the changes that are taking place in Iraq. What were these changes? It is time for the ‘Abbāsīd Dynasty to appear. Abū Muslim also is trying hard to remove Abū Salmah. The Uncles of Saffāh have approved this and are supporting him so that he definitely removes Abū Salmah and this happened. Abū Salmah’s courier had not yet reached Kūfah from Medina when Abū Salmah was murdered. ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd’s response to the letter, therefore, never reached Abū Salmah.

p: 83

Shaykh Mufīd quotes from the very same Abū al-Faraj in his book and not from the Shī‘ah narrations

They chose Muhammad Nafs Zakiyyah for this task. Muhammad was the son of ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd, who, as I have mentioned before, was the son of al-Husayn ibn ‘Alī from his mother’s side. ‘Abd Allāh was a pious, religious and handsome man. He had inherited this beauty from both his mother’s and his father’s side (his mother was also famous for her beauty). In addition, his name was Muhammad, the name of the Prophet. His Father’s name was also ‘Abd Allāh. And by chance he even had a beauty mark on his shoulder. We have in Islamic narrations; when oppression intensifies, one of the children of the Prophet through al-Zahrā will appear who has the same name as the Prophet and has a beauty mark on his back. They believed that the al-Mahdī of the Nation who is destined to appear and rescue the nation from this oppression was him and the age was this age. The illusion that he was the al-Mahdī of the Nation was at least found among the children of Imām al-Hasan. Now, the ‘Abbāsīds had either truly believed this or they advanced with deceit from the beginning. Anyway, just as Abū al-Faraj quotes, “The same ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd got up and started giving a speech. He invited people and said, ‘Let us swear allegiance with one from among ourselves, give oath and beg Allah to make us victorious over the Umayyad Dynasty.’ He then said, ‘O people! You all know: the al-Mahdī of the Nation is my son. Come and swear allegiance with him’.”

It was then that Mansūr said, “Not as the al-Mahdī of the Nation. I also think the one who best qualifies for this, is this young man, he is right, come and swear allegiance with him.”

Everyone then agreed with him and went to swear allegiance with Muhammad. When they all swore allegiance to him, they sent for Imām al-Sādiq.(1) When Imām al-Sādiq entered, ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd who was managing the meeting got up and sat Imām al-Sādiq next to himself. Then, he repeated the words he had said before, which were you all know my son is the al-Mahdī of the Nation, others swore in allegiance with him, you, too, come and swear allegiance with the al-Mahdī of the Nation. Imām al-Sādiq said, “No, do not do this. Now is not the time for the issue of the al-Mahdī of the Nation that the Prophet had informed about. ‘Abd Allāh! You, too, are wrong, if you think your son is the al-Mahdī of the Nation. This son of yours is not the al-Mahdī of the Nation and now is not the time for this matter.”

p: 86

The Imām made his stance very clear. He said, “If you want to swear allegiance with him in the name of ‘the al-Mahdī of the Nation’, then I will not. This is a lie. He is not the al-Mahdī of the Nation and now is not the time for his appearance. But if you want to rise for enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil and your fight is a fight against oppression, then I will swear allegiance.”

Imām al-Sādiq’s position here, therefore, is one hundred percent clear. Imām al-Sādiq was prepared to participate in the fight with them, but only under the title of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. He was not willing to cooperate under the title of ‘the al-Mahdī of the Nation’. They said, “No, He is the al-Mahdī of the Nation and this is a very clear matter.”

The Imām said, “No, I will not swear allegiance. ‘Abd Allāh became upset.” When the Imām saw his sadness he said, “‘Abd Allāh! I am telling you, not only is your son not the al-Mahdī of the Nation, but with us, the Household of the Prophet, lie secrets. We know who will and who will not become the caliph. Your son will not become the caliph, instead he will be killed.” ‘Abd Allāh got irritated and said, “No, you are talking against your belief, you know well this son of mine is the al-Mahdī of the Nation and because of your jealousy towards my son, you are saying such things.”

Imām al-Sādiq patted Abū al-‘Abbās al-Saffāh on the back and said,

(They say, “ayhun” in friendly greeting and conversation). The Imām knew he was engulfed with the greed for the caliphate and nothing else. This is the meaning of what he said, “This caliphate will not fall on you or on your children. Do not cause your child’s death. They will not let the caliphate reach you and your two sons will be killed.” The Imām then left. While he was leaving, he whispered in ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn ‘Imrām Zuhrī’s(1) ear, “Did you see the one wearing a yellow cloak?” (He meant Abū Ja‘far Mansūr.) He replied, “Yes.” The Imām then said, “By Allah I swear, we will see in the future that the very same man will kill these children.” ‘Abd al-‘Azīz was surprised. He whispered to himself, “But they are giving oaths of allegiance today!” He, then, said to the Imām, “Will he kill them?!” The Imām replied, “Yes.”

‘Abd al-‘Azīz says, “In my heart, I said maybe he is saying all these out of jealousy.” Further on, he says, “By God, I did not leave this world before seeing this very Abū Ja‘far Mansūr murdering Muhammad and the other son

p: 87

of ‘Abd Allāh.” The Imām at the same time was very fond of Muhammad and liked him a lot. Abū al-Faraj has thus written,

“Whenever the Imām Saw Muhammad, his eyes would fill with tears and he would say, ‘May my life be sacrificed for him!’ (This is how much the Imām loved him). People say things which are not true (regarding the issue of Mahdism). This means the poor thing had come to believe this as well. He will get killed and will not reach the caliphate. His name is not mentioned among the names of the nation’s leader in the book that was passed to us by ‘Alī.

This shows that they started this movement under the name of Mahdism from the beginning and Imām al-Sādiq strongly opposed this. He said, ‘I am willing to swear allegiance under the title of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil but will not accept it under the title of Mahdism.’ The ‘Abbāsīds, however, had different interests on politics and territory.”

The time of Imām al-Sādiq was completely different from the time of Imām al-Husayn. Imām al-Husayn’s time was a time of complete suppression. For this reason, sayings quoted from the time of Imām al-Husayn do not exceed five or six sentences. On the other hand, during the time of Imām al-Sādiq, the political conflicts and cultural movements prepared the grounds for recording the names of four thousand students as Imām al-Sādiq’s students.

Thus, if we assume (which would be a wrong assumption to make) that the political situation during Imām al-Sādiq’s time to be the same as that of Imām al-Husayn’s time, there will still be a big difference regarding another aspect of each of their situations. What would have happened, if Imām al-Husayn had not martyred (which would have of course carried remorseful consequences)? He would have become idle, staying at home with the doors closed on him. However, let us assume that Imām al-Sādiq was martyred instead and that his martyrdom carried the same consequences as the martyrdom of Imām al-Husayn. But by not getting martyred, he led a scientific and intellectual movement which had a huge impact not only on the Shī‘ah branch but also on the Muslim World as a whole. I will tell you more about this in the future session God-willing.

p: 89

p: 90

caliphate, he should have taken the steps. But our aim is to say if the grounds were not fully prepared, for example, if they were fifty percent prepared, what was stopping the Imām from taking actions even if he was to get killed? Again, this is where the comparison between the situation and methodology of Imām al-Husayn is put forward.

Here, we would like to talk a bit about the characteristics and specifications of the time of Imām al-Sādiq and the Islamic activities during his time and had Imām al-Husayn been there, he would have definitely made the same decisions. We also want to compare the differences between this time and the time of Imām al-Husayn? As I mentioned before, the issue was not why the Imām refused to take action when the conditions had been prepared for him to do so. The question is why the Imām did not go as far as getting killed?

of Mu‘āwiyah—i.e. the period starting from the martyrdom of Imām ‘Alī until the martyrdom of Imām al-Hasan himself—was very vague. No one is reminded of Imām al-Husayn, no quotes, reports, traditions, conversations, sermons, not even a speech or a meeting with him has been mentioned during the time. They were isolated in such a way that no one was able to even contact them. In such a situation if Imām al-Husayn was to live for another fifty years, there would not be any change, not even three sentences would be quoted from him. The possibility for any kind of activity was taken away from him.

During the end of the Umayyad period which led to their downfall and during the ‘Abbāsīd period (especially the beginning) the situation changed. This change, firstly, created intellectual freedom among people. (I do not want to put this on the magnanimity of the ‘Abbāsīds. It is the result of essential qualities of the Islamic society). There is no question that freedom of thought and freedom of opinion existed at the time. The question, however, is where this intellectual freedom originated from? Was this really the result of the politics of the ‘Abbāsīds?

Secondly, enthusiasm and excitement are created among people on scientific issues. Such enthusiasm and excitement of a nation towards science is very rare in history. The sciences included Islamic sciences (i.e. the sciences directly related to Islam such as the science of reading (the Qur’an), the exegesis, science of traditions, jurisprudence, issues related to theology and different parts of literature, as well as sciences not related to Islam, which are so-called human sciences, for example, medicine, philosophy, astrology and mathematics. It has been mentioned in history books that a sudden exceptional movement and progression toward sciences took place and that the means had been prepared for people to present their capabilities in the sphere of science. The same means which did not at all exist previously, at the end of Imām al-Bāqir’s time and the beginning of the time of Imām al-Sādiq, were suddenly produced for those who wanted to be a part of the scientific and intellectual arena, to come and present their ideas. There were, of course, other factors involved in affecting this movement, which the ‘Abbāsīds could not stop even if they wanted to. This was because other people of different races—other than the Arab race—had entered the Muslim World, the most vibrant of which was the Iranian race. Another one of such races was the Egyptian race. The strongest and most powerful and most erudite of all were the Syrians and the Mesopotamians, the regions which were centers of civilization in that era. The difference in races and nations

p: 93

had automatically prepared the means for intellectual exchange.

When they became Muslims, they wanted to know more about the identity of Islam. The Arabs were not accustomed to contemplation and research of the Qur’an. Other nations, however, constantly contemplated on the Qur’an and other issues surrounding it limitlessly. They would think and take into account every single word of the Qur’an.

one of these centers, where Abū Hanīfah was. Basrah was another. Later, during the time of Imām al-Sādiq, when Spain [Andalusia] was conquered, such centres were gradually created there. Every Islamic city was a center itself. They would say that certain jurist has this view; the other jurist had that view. They were the students of this ideology and those were the students of that ideology. A war of beliefs based on jurisprudencial views had also appeared.

Most heated of all (but not the most important) were the theological discussions. From this very century, a genus by the title “the theologians” first appeared (we see such expressions used in Imām al-Sādiq’s words. He says to some of his students: tell these theologians to come). The theologians used to discuss principle issues of belief: issues concerning Allah, His Attributes, the verses of the Qur’an regarding Allah; whether a certain attribute of Allah was His essential [dhātī] entity or if it was something other than this; whether He was an incident or if He had always existed.

They would discuss prophecy and the reality of divine revelations, about Satan [Shaytān] and divine unity as well as dualism. They would also discuss questions concerning action as principle of faith and if no action was taken would that suggest that there is no faith as well? Or does taking action not interfere with faith? They would also discuss the issue of destiny and providence as well as compulsion and volition. The theologians had attracted extreme interest.

The most dangerous of all (I would not say hotter or more important) was the emerging of a genus called the “atheists” [zanādiqah]. The atheists denied Allah and religion fundamentally. For some reason, this genus had freedom. They would even sit in the two holy places (i.e. Mecca and Medina) and even in Masjid al-Harām and Masjid al-Nabī and speak of their opinions and this was, of course, under the title that “this is an ideology after all, we are having doubts and we must discuss them.”(1)

The atheists were the civilized and educated group of that period. They were a genus who was familiar with the world’s living languages one of which

p: 95

was the Seryani language, the scientific language of that period. Most of them knew Greek and a majority were Iranians and knew Farsi. Some were also familiar with the Hindi language and had brought atheism from India. Where did the root of atheism fundamentally appear from? This is itself another discussion. The majority believed that the root of atheism comes from Manichaeism.

The other stream, related to this time, is the Puritanical Sufism (all are extremist and negligent streams). The Sufis emerged at the time of Imām al-Sādiq and created a genus which found many supporters and, therefore, spoke its opinions in freedom. They were the other side to the pharisees. They did not speak as a sect against Islam, but would essentially suggest that the reality of Islam was what they said it was. They suggested their strange puritanical ideas and said that Islam says so. This was intolerable pharisaism.

The Kharijites and the deferrers also each had a sect of their own.

Shāfi‘ī was in the next generation but he served as a student of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik ibn Anas.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s training also goes back to Imām al-Sādiq in a straight line as well as others. The field of Imām al-Sādiq’s lectures on jurisprudence was more successful than other jurists. I will now mention the testimonies of some Sunnī scholars in this regard.

name of Imām al-Sādiq in one place and says,

“He has effervescent knowledge. He was completely trained in sagacity. He was an extremely devout and virtuous person and abstained from voluptuary. He resided in Medina and imparted the secrets of knowledge to his friends. He came to Iraq as well for some time.”

He then points to Imām al-Sādiq’s isolation from politics and says, “He never disputed over the caliphate with anyone.”

He interprets this isolation in the following way, he says, “The Imām was so deeply sunken into the sea of knowledge and wisdom that he paid no attention to such issues.” I do not want to consider his explanation as correct but my point is that he confesses that the Imām had sunk into the sea of wisdom. He says, “Whoever has been sunken into the sea of wisdom, will never drop himself into the river.” (He wants to say such things [politics] are rivers).

Whoever climbs up to the top of the mountain of truth does not have fear of falling down from it.

Shahrestānī, who said these words about Imām al-Sādiq, is bitter toward the Shī‘ism. He has severely criticized the Shī‘ahs in his book (“Al-Milal wa al-Nihal”). He, however, pays this much respect towards Imām al-Sādiq and this is important.

There are many scholars in today’s world who even though have extreme enmity and oppose the the Shī‘ah branch of Islam, they pay respect to Imām al-Sādiq, to whom this sect is related to. Maybe they think to themselves that the views which they oppose are far from Imām al-Sādiq’s views. In any case, they pay a lot of respect to Imām al-Sādiq.

Muslim World was Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq.

Shiblī al-Nu‘mān wrote in his book entitled, “the History of Theology”, “No one could debate with Abū al-Hadhīl on any topic. The only person he was afraid of was Hishām ibn al-Hakam.”

Nazzām, who was regarded as one of the geniuses of that time and who had some theories which are in accordance with some of the new theories of our time (for example with regards to smell and color, he believed that color and smell are separate from the object. This overrides the presumption that smell and color are fortuitous for an object. Especially, in the case of smell, he believes that smell is something that spreads in the air). He was one of Hishām’s students (it has also been written that he got this theory from Hishām ibn al-Hakam) and Hishām was one of Imām al-Sādiq’s students.

Now, you can see from this entire collection the cultural foundation which was made ready for Imām al-Sādiq. Such foundations were not prepared for any other imām before or after him. However, similar grounds were prepared for Imām al-Ridā. In the case of Imām al-Kāzim, the conditions were worse when issues such as imprisonment and the like came about. The rest of the Imāms died in their prime as a result of being poisoned. They were not allowed to live; otherwise, the situations would have been better to some extent. As for Imām al-Sādiq, both of these features were present. He had a long life (nearly seventy years) and his time and the conditions surrounding him were to his favor.

Now, how many of these features prove the differences between the time of Imām al-Sādiq and the time of Imām al-Husayn? In other words, what foundations were prepared for Imām al-Sādiq that were not present during the time of Imām al-Husayn? The Doyen of Martyrs [Sayyid al-Shuhadā] must have either stayed at home all his life, worshipped Allah or in fact be a prisoner, or he must have gotten killed. This was not the same for Imām al-Sādiq (that he should either get killed or be in isolation). Rather, he would have either been killed or he could have used the constructive conditions of his surroundings to the utmost.

We cannot fathom the fact that subsequent Imāms proved and clarified the values of Imām al-Husayn’s uprising. If there was no Imām al-Sādiq, there would be no Imām al-Husayn just as if there was no Imām al-Husayn, there would be no Imām al-Sādiq. That is to say, if Imām al-Sādiq was not there, the values of Imām al-Husayn’s uprising would never have been proven or clarified. At the same time, Imām al-Sādiq made no objection to the caliphate when everyone knew that Imām al-Sādiq never came to terms with the

p: 102

caliphs and that he would campaign against them surreptitiously. A kind of cold war was in the midst. News of the faults, cruelty and tyranny of the caliphs had spread in the Muslim World by Imām al-Sādiq. In this connection, Mansūr made an incredible connotation about Imām al-Sādiq(1) (‘a),

“Ja‘far ibn Muhammad is like a bone stuck in my throat. I can neither take it out nor can I swallow it. I cannot find any evidence against him nor can I tolerate him as I am actually informed that this neutralized ideology he has adopted is against us. This is because those trained under ideology are all against us. However, I cannot find any evidences against him.”

Yes. This is Mansūr’s definition: a bone stuck in the throat. Neither can I take it out, nor can I swallow it.

people of different races were coexisting with one another and felt brotherhood and fellowship towards one another; for example, a student from Khorāsān and a teacher from Egypt or vice versa. The lecture session would be established and the one sitting as the teacher would be, for example, a barbaric slave, such as Nāfi‘ or ‘Ikramah, slaves of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Abbās. This barbaric slave would see Iraqis, Syrians, Hijāzīs, Egyptians, Iranians and Indians participating in his lecture. This was a major factor in preparing the foundations for this progression.

And above all was what we today call religious coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially with the People of the Book [ahl al-kitāb]. This means, in order to coexist with the People of the Book, Muslims tolerated them and did not consider this against their religious principles. In those days, the People of the Book were learned. When they joined the Islamic society, Muslims welcomed their arrival and obtained their knowledge during the very early period of their arrival. In the second era, Muslims were at the pinnacle of the scientific society.

The issue of religious coexistence was a very important factor. This, itself has of course a root in traditions. We have numerous traditions in this regard. Even the late Āyatullāh Majlisī quotes in Bihār (which is also in Nahj al-Balāghah) that the Prophet said (hikmah here means correct scientific saying), “Learn the correct scientific sayings even from a pagan.” The meaning is “hikmah is the long lost of the faithful”. What is meant by hikmah here is its definition in the following āyah,

“He gives wisdom to whomever He wishes, and he who is given wisdom is certainly given an abundant good. But none takes admonition except those who possess intellect.”(1)

This carries the meanings convincing, valid, solid and correct sayings. This is an excellent definition: the long lost. If an individual has something in possession but loses it, how is it that he looks for it whereve he goes? If you have a priceless ring which you are really fond of and it gets lost, you will go through every hardship and focus on every corner that comes to your mind in order to find what you have lost.

This (hikmah is ‘the long lost’ of the faithful) is one of the best and most honorable Islamic definitions. The faithful will grab it wherever he finds it, even if it is in the hands of a pagan. This means if you lost your property, and

p: 104

your lost property is in the hands of a pagan, would you say “I want no business with it” or would you say “this is mine”?

‘Alī says, “The faithful sees knowledge in the hands of pagan as a trust and himself as the main owner and would say, ‘The pagan is not worthy of it. I am the one worthy of it’.”

Some have put the issue of religious coexistence with the People of the Book on the account of the caliphs. They say that the tolerance of the caliphs demanded Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others to include fellowship into their cultures and benefit from one another. But it was not because of the tolerance of the caliphs. It was the order of the Prophet. Even Jurjī Zaydān directs this affair towards the tolerance of the caliphs. He quotes the story of al-Sayyid al-Radī and says,

“Al-Sayyid al-Radī is an amazing man. He is on the same level as the religious jurists. He is al-Sayyid al-Murtadā’s brother.” When Abū Ishāq Sābī(1), his contemporaneous scientist, dies he recites an ode in praise of him,(2)

ارایت من حملوا علی الاعواد ارایت کیف خبا ضیاء النادی

Did you see who they were carrying upon the coffin?

Did you realize the light of our circle has gone out?

This was a mountain that collapsed…

Some critisized him and said, why a sayyid (a child of the Prophet), a great Islamic scholar praised a pagan man this way! He replied, “Yes, I wailed his knowledge. He was a knowledgable man! (In these days if somebody does such a thing, they throw him out of the city.)”

After narrating this story, Jurjī Zaydān(3) says, “Look at the tolerance! A man

p: 105

of such a great spirit and an exalted position as well as knowledge praises a pagan this way.” Later, he says, “These all initiate from the caliphs’ imperial courts who were people with vast tolerance.”

This is not related to the imperial courts of caliphs. Al-Sayyid al-Radī was the student of ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib and he was the one who gathered Nahj al-Balāghah. He is more familiar than anyone with the commandments of his ancestors, the Prophet, and ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib, who have said, “Knowledge and hikmah are respectable everywhere.”

These were the factors that created this scientific enthusiasm which inevitably created the foundations for Imām al-Sādiq.

Our discussion, therefore, is that even though the basis for Imām al-Sādiq’s leadership were not laid down—if they had been prepared, they would have been the best of all prepared foundations—another ground was laid down for the Imām and he used it in a way that can certainly be named a scientific movement.

The Muslim World, including both Shī‘ahs and Sunnīs, is linked to Imām al-Sādiq. This is noticeable in the Shī‘ah school of thought. The Sunnī schools also initiated from Imām al-Sādiq since the chief and head of Sunnī schools, the University of al-Azhar, was established thousands of years ago by the Fātimid(1) Shī‘ahs. All the rest of the Sunnī schools branched from this university and they all result from Imām al-Sādiq’s use of the situation of his time.

These questions are at minimum forwarded at the problem of whether or not it was better for Imām al-Sādiq to let go of these foundations, fight and get killed in combat against oppression? Islam is not only about fighting oppression. Islam consists of other issues as well. Therefore, I just mentioned this issue in order to compare the differences between the time of Imām al-Sādiq and the time of other Imāms. If Imām al-Sādiq had not used this opportunity, this question could have been asked: did the Imām not want the caliphate for the sake of spreading Islam? Why did he not use this opportunity and get himself killed? The answer is: if the grounds were suitable, they would not have disregarded it. The suitable opportunity for

p: 106

Imām al-Ridā was also to find a way into meetings of the faithful [mu’minīn] and to raise his voice from there. Imām al-Ridā may have spent a year or two with Ma’mūn but from everything narrated by him during that time may not have been narrated from any other period.

p: 108

martyred Imām among the infallible Imāms. Just as calling Mūsā ibn Ja‘far, al-Kāzim, would not mean the rest of the Imāms were not al-Kāzim (dominant over their anger); addressing Imām al-Ridā, as al-Ridā does not mean that this is not applicable to the rest of Imāms or if we say Imām al-Sādiq it does not mean that the rest of the Imāms were not [God-forbid] truthful.

The history of the infallible Imāms generally demonstrates their constant battle against oppression. If they speak of fighting while in dissimulation [taqiyyah], it does not mean stagnancy and idleness. The root of taqiyyah is from waqy, just like taqwā, the root of which is from waqy. This is what taqiyyah means: defending oneself undercover or metaphorically speaking, using a shield to defend oneself during battle to get hit less but in no way withdrawing. This is why we see that all the infallible Imāms have the honor—yes the honor—of not coming to terms with any tyrant caliph and were continuously hostile with them.

Today, after one thousand and three hundred years (more for some Imāms and slightly less for some others) you see caliphs like ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān (from before his time and during his time; the children of ‘Abd al-Malik, the cousins of ‘Abd al-Malik, Banī al-‘Abbās, Mansūr Dawāniqī, Abū al-‘Abbās al-Saffāh, Hārūn al-Rashīd, Ma’mūn, and Mutawakkil) are among the most ill-reputed people in history. Among us and even among the Sunnīs, it is clear that they were bespattered. Who bespattered them? If it were not for the resistence of the infallible Imāms who revealed their depravities and debaucheries and other people like them, we would consider Hārūn and especially Ma’mūn on the same rank as saints. If the infallible Imāms had not revealed Ma’mūn’s inner intentions and had not fully introduced him, he would have definitely been regarded as one of the greatest heroes in religion and science in this world.

Our topic of discussion is about the martyrdom of Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far. Why did they martyr him? First of all, the fact that Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far was martyred has been made certain and no one can deny it. According to the most famous and most valid narrations, Mūsā ibn Ja‘far spent four years in the corner of prison dungeons and passed away there. There are historical texts about the time the Imām spent in prison; suggestions were constantly forwarded to the Imām demanding for apology or even a verbal confession from him, but the Imām never agreed.

grandchild of Mansūr Dawānīqī. ‘Īsā ibn Ja‘far ibn Abī Ja‘far Mansūr was a violent man who did not take intrest in moral issues. As one of his relative says, “They took this pious and holy man to a place where he heard things, he never had heard before.”

The Imām was taken to Basrah Prison in the Arabic month of Dhū al-Hijjah, of the year 178 AH, which was supposed to be a time of celebration and happiness due to ‘Īd al-Duhā.

The Imām spent a period of time in Basrah Prison after which even this very ‘Īsā had gradually become fond of the Imām. He too, at first, truly imagined the Imām to be what the government had broadcasted of him, which was a rebellious man whose only skill was ‘to claim to be the rightful successor’. In other words, the desire to become a leader had made him crazy. Upon his personal aquaintence with the Imām, he realized that the Imām was a spiritual man, whose only purpose of raising the issue of successoral was to address its spiritual aspects. The situation then changed. He ordered a very good room to be put at the Imām’s disposal and entertained the Imām publicly.

Hārūn sent a secret message, in which he ordered ‘Īsā to get rid of him. ‘Īsā responded, “I will not do such a thing.” Finally, ‘Īsā wrote a letter to the Caliph,

“Order them to come and take him back; otherwise, I will set him free myself. I cannot keep such a man as a prisoner.”

Since he was the Caliph’s cousin and the grandchild of Mansūr, his words were, of course, observed.

guest. Hārūn took the Imām away from him and handed him over to Fadl ibn Yahyā Barmakī.

After a while, Fadl also started treating the Imām that way which this really frustrated Hārūn. He sent his spies to investigate. They found out that the story was true. He finally took the Imām away and Fadl was disfavoured by Hārūn. In one of Hārūn’s gathering, Fadl’s father (an Iranian minister who was hostile towards the Shī‘ahs), to stop his child from being lowered in esteem by Hārūn, said in Hārūn’s ear,

“If my son has done something wrong, I am prepared to follow any orders you may have. My son has repented, my son this and my son that…”

Afterwards, he came to Baghdad and took the Imām away from his son and handed him over to someone else called Sindī ibn Shāhik who they say was not a Muslim. The Imām went through a lot of difficulties in his prison; that is to say the Imām was not left in peace in his prison.

Hārūn ordered his men to go after the Imām. It just so happened that the Imām was not at home. Where was he? He was at the Prophet’s Mosque. The Imām was praying when they entered. They did not permit him to finish his prayers and dragged him out of the Prophet’s Mosque. The Imām looked at the Prophet’s grave and said, “Do you see how your nation is treating your children?”

Why does Hārūn do this? This was because he wants to take oaths of allegiance for his children as future crown princes. But, the Imām had not rioted. He had not rioted but his situation was basically a different one. His situation is explained by the fact that Hārūn and his children were trying to usurp the caliphate.

got up and said, ‘Tell him to come in.’ He then said, ‘Tell him to come in on horseback and not get off.’ He ordered us to go and welcome him. We went and saw a man on whose face traces of piety and worship were clearly visible. He appeared to be from among the first class worshippers and a person of great piety. My father shouted from a distance, ‘Please come in mounted for so and so’s sake.’ Then, he very politely seated him higher than himself and started to ask him questions, ‘How many are your dependents?’ ‘It was discovered that he had lots of dependents.’ ‘How are your living conditions?’ ‘My life’s situation is so and so.’ ‘What is your income?’ ‘My income is this much.’ He then left. When he was leaving, my father told us to go, accompany him and see him off. To Hārūn’s command, we escorted him to the door. That was when he quietly told me, ‘You will become the caliph. I will give you only one advice that is not to treat my children badly.’

We did not know who he was. We returned. I was the most inquisitive from amongst the rest of my siblings so when the place got empty, I asked my father who the man was to whom he paid so much respect. He smiled and said, ‘Frankly, this seat that we are sitting on belongs to them.’ I asked, ‘Do you really believe this?’ He said, ‘I do.’ I said, ‘Why then don’t you give it to them?’ He replied, ‘Do you not know that kingdom is sterile? If I come to know that even you, my son, ever had the idea of becoming my adversary, I will take off your body that which carries your eyes.’

This passed. Hārūn was giving recompense. He would send exorbitant amounts of money to this and that person’s house. This ranged from four thousand red gold dīnārs to five thousand and so on. We thought the sum he would send the man he paid so much respect to would probably be very high. It was, however, the least; two hundred dīnārs. Again, I went and asked my father about this, he replied, ‘Do you not know that they are our rivals? Politics demands that they always be in need of financial aid and short of money. This is because if their economical facilities ever improve, it is possible that one thousand swords will rise against your father’.”

My chef was also one of them. ‘Alī ibn Yaqtīn is Hārūn’s minister. He is the second person is the land but a Shī‘ah and undercover. He is aiding Mūsā ibn Ja‘far’s aims but his guise is for Hārūn. He reported to the Imām two or three times but Mūsā ibn Ja‘far, who because of his special perception realized the dangers he could be facing, gave him instructions which saved his life. There were some people among Hārūn’s system who were very fond of the Imām and were limitlessly enamoured by him but never dared to contact the Imām.

One of the Ahwāzī Iranian Shī‘ahs has said, “I had become subject to some very heavy taxes which were put down for me. If I wanted to pay those taxes they had made up for me, my life would crash down. By chance the governor of Ahwāz was deposed and a new governor replaced him. I was really worried that he would ask me for those taxes. A friend, however, advised me to discuss the issue with him because both the governor and I were Shī‘ahs but I never dared to go to him and say that I am a Shī‘ah because I could not believe it myself. I said to myself that it would be better if I went to Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far in Medina. If he confirmed that the governor is Shī‘ah, then I will ask him for advice. I went to the Imām and he wrote a letter which was not longer than three or four sentences; three to four imperious sentences, the type an imām would write to his follower. They were about helping to resolve the problems of a Muslim believer who was in need, and something about the position a believer holds with God and that was it.

I secretly brought the letter with me to Ahwāz. I realized that I should give this letter to the governor confidentially. One night, I went to his door. His door-keeper came and I said, ‘Tell him someone has come from Mūsā ibn Ja‘far and has a letter for you.’ I saw him coming; he greeted me and said, ‘What are you saying?’ I said, ‘I have come from Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far and have brought a letter.’ He took the letter from me. He recognized the letter and kissed it. He then kissed my face and my eyes. He immediately took me inside the house and sat in front of me like a child and said, ‘You went to the Imām?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘What is the problem that you are facing?’ I replied, ‘They have put down very heavy taxes for me. If I pay them, my life will be in ruins.’ He ordered for the book to be brought on the same night and corrected it.’ Because the Imām had written, ‘If any one makes a faithful person happy, such and such…,’ he said, ‘Will you let me do you another service?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘I want to halve whatever I own with you tonight. I will halve all the money I have with you and will ask the price of whatever goods I own. Accept this from me.’ The Ahwāzī says, ‘I came out

p: 117

in that condition and in a trip I later had to Medina I told the story to the Imām.’ The Imām smiled and was contented.”

What was Hārūn afraid of? He was afraid of the attraction towards the truth. “Language is not the only tool for propagation.”(1) Language has little influence on propagation. True propaganda is through actions. Whoever confronted Mūsā ibn Ja‘far, his generous father or his pure children and spent time with them, he would basically see the reality within them. He would see that they know Allah deeply and truly fear Him. They truthfully love Allah and whatever they did was truly for Him.

a long time, he may at least look at her which makes it possible to accuse him and a group of prattlers can say, ‘How could this be possible, a man and a young woman alone in an empty room’?”

They were suddenly informed that a dramatic change had occurred in this young slave girl and that even she had started worshipping. They saw that this slave girl had become another follower of the Imām.(1) They saw her completely disturbed. She was in a different mental state. She kept looking at the sky and at the earth. They said to her, “What is the matter?” She replied, “When I saw this man, I understood what I am and realized that I have committed a lot of sins in my life. I have committed many faults. I think, I should now only stay in a state of repentance.” She did not change her mind until she died.

or enslaved?” I replied, “Of course, he is free.” He then said, “Yes, he is free, if he was a slave, such noises would not have come out.” Bishr said, “What did he look like?” When the servant described him, he realized that it was Mūsā ibn Ja‘far. He asked, “Where did he go?” He said, “He went this way.” Bishr was bare-footed and did not take the time to put his shoes on in fear that he may not find the Imām. He ran out barefoot. He ran and threw himself on the Imām’s lap and asked, “What did you say?” The Imām replied, “This is what I said.” He said, “Sir! From this very hour, I want to be Allah’s slave;” and he meant it. From that moment onwards, he was Allah’s slave.

This news reached Hārūn. This was why he felt threatened and said, “They just should not be. Basically, your presence (Imām al-Kāzim) is a sin in my view.” The Imām asked, “What have I done? What uprising have I caused? What actions have I performed?” These questions had no reply but were saying in an adequate expression, “Basically, your presence is a sin.” At the same time, the Imāms never failed to enlighten their followers and other people. They told and conveyed the story to them and they understood what what happening.

that you are contented with the survival of the oppressor and this itself is a sin.”

Safwān came out. Hārūn’s men were suddenly informed that Safwān had sold out all his camels. He basically left this job. When he sold them, he went to the other party of the contract and said, “We shall terminate this contract because I no longer want this job,” and tried to bring some excuses. Hārūn was informed and said, “Bring him here.” When they brought him, Hārūn asked, “What is going on?” He replied, “I have grown old. I can no longer do this job. I thought even if I want to work, it can be something else.” Hārūn realized and said, “Tell me the truth! Why did you sell your camels?” Safwān replied, “That was the truth.” Hārūn said, “No, I know what the story is. Mūsā ibn Ja‘far was informed you loaned your camels to me and he told you that this transgressed the law. Do not deny it. I swear to God, had it not been for the long years of acquaintance we have had with your family, I would have ordered your execution right here.”

So, these are what caused the martyrdom of Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far. Firstly, his presence was, in a way, what caused the caliphs to feel threatened. Secondly, they were publicizing against the caliphs and telling the stories of their oppression. They, however, dissimulated, which means they acted in a way that no evidence was left available for their opposition. The conditions of their time demanded for them to do their jobs undercover and try not to leave any evidence behind for the other party or at least the least possible. Thirdly, they had an amazingly resistive spirit. As I said before, when they say, “Sir! You just become a little apologetic in the presence of Yahyā,” and he replies, “My life is ending.” In another time, Hārūns sent somebody to prison and wanted him to get the Imām’s confession, and repeated the same things, “We are very fond of you; we are devoted to you. It is to the best interest that you do not go to Medina; otherwise, we do not intend to keep you imprisoned. We have ordered them to keep you in a safe place near my self. I sent you my special chef, as you may not be used to our foods, to prepare for you whatever you desire.” Who was this agent? It was Fadl ibn Rabī‘ in whose prison the Imām once was and he was one of Hārūn’s high ranking officers. He went to see the Imām in prison while he was wearing his official uniform and he was armed. The Imām realized that Fadl ibn Rabī‘ had come (now observe the soul power): Fadl is standing waiting for the Imām to finish his prayer so he could communicate the Caliph’s messege. As soon as the Imām said the prayer salutations [salāms] and he said, assalāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh, he gave no chance and

p: 121

said Allāh-u Akbar and stood up to pray. Again Fadhl waited. The Imām’s prayer finished again and as soon as he said, assalāmu ‘alaykum, the Imām again gave him no chance to begin and said, “Allāh-u Akbar.” This was repeated a couple of times. Fadl realized that this was being done deliberately. He thought at first the Imām has some prayers in which he has to read four, six, eight rak‘ah’s one after the other. Afterwards, he found out that this was being done because the Imām had no desire to pay any attention to him. He did not want to accept him. He eventually figured out that he has to fulfil his mission and if he stays for long, Hārūn would become suspicious of him. This time he started talking before the Imām began to say his salāms. He may have said salām first. He said whatever Hārūn had said. Hārūn had also told him, “Don’t go there and say this is what Commander of the Faithful [Amīr al-Mu’minīn] has said; don’t use the term, ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn’. Say this is what your cousin has said.” He said in the utmost courtesy and politeness, “Your cousin has said that it is proven for us that you have committed no faults and sins but it is to the best interest you stay in this place and not go to Medina. I have ordered a special chef for the time being to come, order whatever food you desire so he prepares it for you.” They have written that the Imām’s response to this was, [Allāhu Akbar],

“My own wealth is not here. If I want to spend, I will spend from my own licit wealth. The chef is coming so I give orders? I am not a kind of person to ask, ‘How much my ratio is or give my portion for this month.’ I am not also a man who begs.” As soon as he finished speaking, he said Allāhu Akbar and stood for prayers.

This is how the caliphs realized that they can in no way force them to surrender and become obedient followers. Otherwise, the caliphs themselves knew how costly martyring the Imāms would be for them. Their tyrannical policies, however, did not allow them to avoid this. They considered this the easiest way.

Sindī and said, “You do this job (the job of martyring the Imām).” When he accepted Yahyā prepared a very dangerous poison and handed it over to Sindī. In there they had prepared poisonous dates which were fed to the Imām and then they immediately summoned witnesses. They invited the city scholars and Judges (they have written that they invited the faithful men who were considered as honorable, pious and trusted by people). In that meeting they called the Imām as well as Hārūn and said, “O people! Have you heard what rumours these Shī‘ahs are spreading about Mūsā ibn Ja‘far? They say: ‘He is not comfortable in prison and Mūsā ibn Ja‘far this and that…’ See for yourselves that he is completely healthy.”

As soon as he finished, the Imām said, “He is lying! Right now I have been poisoned and not more than two or three days is left of my life.”

This time they missed their target. Then after the Imām’s martyrdom, they took his body next to Baghdad’s bridge and kept taking people there and saying, “See, the master is unharmed, none of his bones are broken, his head is not cut either, his throat is not black. We did not kill the Imām, he died a natural death.” They kept the Imām’s body next to Baghdad’d bridge for three days to make people believe that the Imām died of natural causes. The Imām, of course, had many devotees, but the group who reacted like wild rue seeds on fire were the Shī‘ahs.

There is a very touching story which has been written, “Once a group of the Imām’s followers came from Iran with a lot of hardship, they were used to these difficult journeys during those days. When they succeeded to come to Baghdad, they really wished, at least, to visit this prisoner. Visiting a prisoner should not be considered a crime but they were given no permission whatsoever to visit him. They said to themselves, ‘We will beg them, they may accept.’ They came and begged. As it happened, they accepted and said, ‘All right! We will arrange it today. You wait here.’ These desperate people were assured that they will visit their Master and then return to their city and say, ‘We had the good fortune of visiting the Master. We visited him and asked so and so questions from him and this is how he answered it.’ While they were waiting outside the prison to see when they will be given the permission to visit, they suddenly saw four porters carrying a body out on their shoulders. The officer said, ‘This is your Imām’.”

p: 123

p: 124

opposite—taking it. The following question can cross ones mind: what are the Imāms supposed to do then? When they leave the job they get criticism and if others want to hand over the job to them and they accept, they will still be criticized? What therefore must be done?

However, the critics have one issue in common; they all agree that in both cases, of handing over leadership and acquiring it, there is a kind of agreement. Handing over was a form of coming to terms with the present Caliph who had, for sure, taken over the caliphate unjustly and the acceptance of the position of successor was also ultimately a form of agreement.

Those who criticize say: Imām al-Hasan should not have handed over the affairs and come to term in the situation. He should have fought until he was killed. And in the case of Imām al-Ridā, he should not have accepted. He should have resisted and fought as until he got killed, even if he was forced to accept it.

We shall now analyze the isse of successoral, which is a very important historical issue, so that the matter is made clear. The peace of Imām al-Hasan was to an extent discussed previously.

We must first investigate the historical view point irrespective of the issue why and how Imām al-Ridā accepted this offer, to see what the story was.

out and go to toilet. This was a form of gradual torture. When he wanted to kill them, he would say: go and destroy the roof on their heads.

Anyone, who came after Mansūr, did the same thing. During Ma’mūn’s time, five of the Imām’s children rebelled, whose names are mentioned in “Murawwij al-Dhahab” by Mas‘ūdī and “Kāmil” by ibn Athīr. During the time of Hārūn and Ma’mūn, seven to eight of the ‘Alawīs rebelled. Therefore, hatred and enmity between the ‘Alawīs and ‘Abbāsīds is not a small issue. The ‘Abbāsīds did not refrain from any action for gaining power over the caliphate. Even if someone from their own dynasty became their rival, they would not hesitate and immediately killed him. This was true in the case of Abū Muslim, who had served them so much, but who was killed as soon as they felt the slightest bit of threat from him. All the service the Barmakīs gave to Hārūn and all the cordiality these two had towards each other (the cordiality between Hārūn and Barmak had became a historical proverb)(1) did not do any good for the Barmakīs. Suddenly, Hārūn got rid of them for a very little political issue and scorched their family. Even His Excellency Ma’mūn got into a fight with his brother Amīn. These two brothers fought each other and Ma’mūn won and his bother got killed in a terrible manner.

Now, the question is how Ma’mūn, who had such a personality, prepare to call up on Imām al-Ridā from Medina and order for Imām al-Ridā to be brought to him?

When they brought Imām al-Ridā, he suggested to the Imām to accept the caliphate from him.(2) What was his motivation for this? What was going on? It is not easy to analyze this event historically.

Jurjī Zaydān in the fourth volume of his book, entitled “Tārīkh-e Tamaddun” (the History of Civilizations), discusses this issue with a special perception which I will talk about later. But he confesses to a matter that the ‘Abbāsīds used to keep their policies a secret even from their very close people and their policies are still unknown.

p: 127

Shaykh Mufīd. They were very similar, as if they were both the result of a merger of the same historical evidence into one source which they have been written from. Therefore, our comments in this regard have been taken from not only Shī‘ah sources.

Now let’s investigate Ma’mūn’s motivation to figure out what really forced him to raise this issue. Was Ma’mūn really thinking of handing the job over to Imām al-Ridā that in case of his death or murder, the caliphate would be transferred to the ‘Alawī family and to Imām al-Ridā? If he really had this belief, did it remain with him till the end? In that case, we must not then accept that Ma’mūn poisoned Imām al-Ridā. We should accept the words of those who claim that Imām al-Ridā died a natural death. They thought that Ma’mūn had good intentions from the beginning and that his good intentions stayed with him until the end is not acceptable by Shī‘ah scholars. Most westerners have such beliefs. They believe that Ma’mūn was truly a Shī‘ah and truly fond of ‘Alī’s family.

Hārūn.” He then told a detailed story about his father’s inclinations towards the Shī‘ism. He had this kind of reverence towards Mūsā ibn Ja‘far. This was how fond of him he was. But at the same time he treated Mūsā ibn Ja‘far in the worse possible manner. Once I asked my father, “If you have so much regard for this man why are you treating him like this?” He said, “Kingdom is sterile (an Arabic proverb) which means that a kingdom does not take into account his own child, let alone other things.” He then said, “My little boy! Even if you, my child, fight with me over the caliphate, I will take of your body whatever carries your eyes, meaning I will separate your head from you body.”

Thus, there is no doubt that Ma’mūn was fond of the Shī‘ism, however, he was famous for being “an imām-killing Shī‘ah”. Was it not true that the people of Kūfah had Shī‘ah inclinations yet they took part in killing Imām al-Husayn? There is no doubt that Ma’mūn was an erudite and knowledge-loving man and this is the reason why westerners believe that he had plans to transfer the caliphate to Imām al-Ridā out of sincerity, belief and good intentions. They believe that events in Imām al-Ridā’s life stopped him and that he died a natural death. This, in their belief, was how the issue was terminated.

But, of course, Shī‘ah scholars believe that this is not acceptable. The evidences are also contrary to this belief. If the matter was this serious, Imām al-Ridā’s reaction towards accepting the caliphate would not have been the way they were. We see that Imām al-Ridā did not regard this matter as a serious one.

power to resist my brother and that I would be captured and handed over to him handcuffed only to face an ominous future.

One day I repented. He shows a room to the one he was talking to and says, “In this very room, I ordered for some water to be brought to me. First I washed my body, purified myself (I am not sure whether it is ironical to ghusul or the just washing). I then ordered for clean white clothes and in this very place I read the parts of the Qur’an which I had memorized. I prayed four rak‘ahs of prayer and made a vow to Allah to return the caliphate to its rightful owners if he were to keep me safe and sound and make me victorious over my brother, I did this with pure sincerity. From there onwards, I felt the disentanglements in my affairs open. After that, I was never defeated. I had sent a group to the front in Sistān and I received news of their glory. I then sent Tāhir ibn al-Husayn to my brother. He also became victorious; one victory after another. Because my prayers were granted by Allah, I wanted to fulfil my promise.”

Shaykh Sadūq and others have approved of this story. The only motivation driving Ma’mūn was the oath he had made to Allah. This is one probability.

very badly. They did such and such, now it would be proper for you to bring the best of ‘Alī’s family and make him your crown prince.” Ma’mūn was reluctant to do this but he saw no other options because Fadl had requested this of him.

Therefore, if we again assume this to be Fadl’s initiative, then why would he do it? Was Fadl a Shī‘ah? Did he do this because of the belief he had in Imām al-Ridā? If so, then why did he still accept his Zoroastrian beliefs? Where his intentions only to transform the caliphate even though he was not a Shī‘ah of Imām al-Ridā and he was bad? And, therefore, if his plans worked, the danger would mostly be towards Ma’mūn’s government, because Ma’mūn was ultimately a Muslim caliph. However, maybe they wanted to separate Iran from the Muslim World and take it towards Zoroastrianism.

Everything I am saying are all questions, I do not want to imply that history has given definite answer to these questions.

Zayd al-Nār, Imām al-Ridā’s brother, who was pardoned by Ma’mūn. Ma’mūn thought to himself, “I will eventually please them and stop their uprising.” He, in fact, wanted to give them a share of the government so they would calm down and the people around them disintegrate. He wanted to disarm the ‘Alawīs so wherever they go to assemble an uprising against the Caliph, people tell them, “You also have a share in the government. Imām al-Ridā is now the crown prince. Do you want to rise against Imām al-Ridā?”

A) Imām al-Ridā’s disarmament

The other probability in relation to Ma’mūn’s initiative was the policy to disarm Imām al-Ridā himself. It is in our narrations that one day Imām al-Ridā told Ma’mūn, “This is what you intend.” You know, one way to disarm people who criticize a system is to give them a post in that system. Then, whatever the situation, if people were still unhappy, their dissatisfaction could no longer be put to use. On the contrary, the dissatisfied people will get provoked against them (i.e. if Imām al-Ridā had a post in the government, those people who claimed that the caliphate rightfully belonged to ‘Alī’s family, or that the world would be a garden if they became Caliphs, or that justice would be established, etc., they would turn against him). Ma’mūn wanted to select Imām al-Ridā as the Crown Prince so that people would say afterwards, “No, the situation did not change. Nothing happened.” Or maybe he wanted to accuse ‘Alī’s family and say, “They say so and so when they have no access to anything, but when they gain access, they become silent and do not act.”

It is very difficult for one to reach a definite conclusion from Ma’mūn’s point of view using historical stand points. Was this Ma’mūn’s initiative? Or was it Fadl ibn Sahl’s initiative? If it was Fadl’s initiative, what was it based on? And if it was Ma’mūn’s initiative, were his intentions sincere or not? If he had sincerity, did he revert from it at the end or not? And if he did not have sincerity, what was his policy? From historical points of view, these matters are uncertain. Most of these, of course, have a reason but not ones that we could say are one hundred percent definite. Maybe what Shaykh Sadūq and others believe is correct even though it may not seem palpable to the Shī‘ahs to say that Ma’mūn had pure intentions from the beginning but later he changed his mind. Just as people make decisions by reverting to the truth when they are faced with difficult situations but forget about their initial intentions when they are freed from those difficulties.

p: 134

“And when they mount upon the ship, they pray to Allah, making their faith pure for Him only, but when he bringeth them safe to land, behold! They ascribe partners (on to Him).”(1)

The Qur’an says when people get entrapped in the four sea waves, they become very pure and devoted but once they are out, they gradually forget. Ma’mūn was also stuck in these four sea waves. He made this oath at first and decided to fulfil it. But, gradually he forgot and reverted from it completely.

It is better to analyze the matter through Imām al-Ridā’s own words. In my opinion, if we analyze the situation from his point of view, especially by taking into consideration the historical facts, then a lot of questions, even those related to Ma’mūn, will be answered.

including Fadl ibn Salh Dhū al-Riyāsatayn. He again asked them for their opinions on this matter. They disagreed with utmost bluntness and gave a very sharp response. He decapitated the first one. He asked the second one who insisted on his response. Ma’mūn decapitated him as well. He then turned to Jalūdī.(1) Imām al-Ridā was sitting next to Ma’mūn, he whispered to Ma’mūn, “Skip this one.” Jalūdī said, “Oh the Commander of the Faithful! I have a request from you. For God’s sake do not accept this man’s word about me.” Ma’mūn said, “Your oath is practicable that I will never take this man’s word about you.” (He (Jalūdī) did not know that the Imām was interceding for him). He was beheaded right there.

In any case, they brought the Imām to Marw in that state. They placed everyone from ‘Alī’s family in one place and Imām al-Ridā in a special place, under surveillance and under arrest. It was there that Ma’mūn discussed the matter with the Imām. This is among the historical facts.

He was trying to say that the matter did not violate the Imām’s family customs, since it was similar to the time when ‘Alī participated in the council which had congregated to choose a caliph. It meant that he had temporarily withdrawn from the right, which he considered was bestowed upon him by Allah and surrendered to the situation so that he could see what the situation was and how the conditions were from the people’s point of view. Will the job be handed over to him or not? ‘So if the council had given the caliphate to your father he would have accepted it. You should accept it, too.’ The Imām finally agreed because his life was threatened; that is, if he had not accepted it, he would have been killed. Of course, the question whether or not Imām al-Ridā’s refusal to accept the position of ‘crown prince’ was worth the cost of his life will remain for you to decide. Is this similar to the oath of allegiance Yazīd wanted from Imām al-Husayn? We shall discuss all these questions later.

hand over the caliphate (this of course is not very definite).” In any case, he either proposed to transfer the caliphate to Imām al-Ridā first and later said if you do not agree to take the caliphate then accept the position of crown prince or he offered the crown prince position from the beginning and Imām strongly refused.

Now, what was the Imām’s logic for refusing? Why did the Imām refuse? We cannot of course answer all these with definite answers but according to the narrations quoted by the Shī‘ahs in the “‘Uyūn al-Akhbār al-Ridā” which says, “When Ma’mūn said, ‘I thought of deposing myself from the caliphate, appointing you instead of my self and pledging my allegiance to you’, the Imām replied, ‘You are either the rightful leader or you are not. If this caliphate rightfully belongs to you and if this caliphate is a divine caliphate, then you have no right to take off the garb that Allah has chosen for you and give it to someone else. And if it does not belong to you then you still do not have the right to give it out. Why should you give something that is not yours to someone else? This means that the caliphate does not belong to you. You must announce like Mu‘āwiyah, the son of Yazīd that I am not rightful and inevitably denigrate your father just as he denigrated and say, ‘My fathers put this garb on unrightfully. I also wore it unrightfully throughout these times, I will therefore leave.’ You must not say I am handing over and entrusting the caliphate.’ When Ma’mūn heard these words, he immediately changed the manner of his approach and said, ‘You have no choice.’

Then, Ma’mūn threatened the Imām and mixed logic into his threat.(1) The sentence he used which was both threatening and logical was, ‘Your grandfather, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib, participated in the council (which consisted of six people) ‘Umar had chosen. ‘Umar who was the Caliph of the time, threatened and said, ‘They must decide within three days and if they don’t or one of them disobeys the decision made by the majority, Abū Talhah will be appointed to behead him’.’

He was trying to say you are in the same situation your grandfather was in and I am in the position ‘Umar was in. You will follow your grandfather and participate. This sentence implicitly carried the meaning that even though your grandfather ‘Alī considered the caliphate as his right, why did he take part in the council? He participated, so he could exchange views about the

p: 140

issue whom the vice-regency should be handed over to? This was a kind of demotion shown by your grandfather ‘Alī who did not show obduracy and say, ‘What is this council? The caliphate belongs to me. If you are stepping down, then step down so I will be the Caliph; otherwise, I will not participate in this council.’ The meaning of his participation in that council was that he dispersed his explicit and definite right and placed himself among the people in the council.

Your situation is now similar to that of ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib’s situation. This was the rational aspect of the story. But the threat aspect, ‘Umar was a caliph whose actions were regarded almost as evidence for the time and age. Ma’mūn was trying to say if I make a rigorous decision, society will accept it and would say he made the same decision the second Caliph made. He said, ‘The Muslim interest lies in the council and if anyone violates it, behead him. And I give this order upon the decree that I am the Caliph and I say it is to the best interest of Muslims that ‘Alī ibn Mūsā accepts the heir-apparency and if he disobeys I will behead him because I am the Caliph.’ He mixed logic and threat. Therefore, another one of the historical facts is that Imām al-Ridā refused to accept to be Ma’mūn’s crown prince but later agreed because of Ma’mūn’s threats.

The third issue which is again among definite historical facts is that from the beginning, the Imām set a condition for Ma’mum which was I will not interfere in anything meaning practically I do not want to be a part of this system whether under the title of ‘crown prince’ or not. They can make coins in my name if they want to, read sermons in my name if they want to, but do not involve me in any job practically. I do not want to interfere in judgements or the administration of justice nor in any removals from or appointments to a position or any other job.(1)

In that same formal ceremony (for his crown prince position), the Imām behaved in such a way which proved his separation from Ma’mūn’s system. In my opinion, the first sentence he read in his first ‘crown prince’ speech is very amazing and valuable. Ma’mūn prepared that great ceremony and invited all the heads of the country including the ministers, the army heads

p: 141

and other figures to all participate with green clothes that was the slogan they set then.(1)

The first person he ordered to come and give oath of allegiance to Imām al-Ridā as the crown prince was his son ‘Abbās ibn Ma’mūn who was apparently the previous crown prince or the candidate for this position. They all then came one by one and gave oath of allegiance. Then, the poets and rhetoricians came and read excellent poems and dictated some brilliant sermons.

It was then decided for Imām al-Ridā to read a sermon. The Imām stood up and only said one and a half sentence which was actually criticizing all their actions. This is the content of it,

“We (meaning us Ahl al-Bayt, the infallible Imāms) are benefactors to you as your guardians.”

This meant: the right is basically ours and not something for Ma’mūn to hand over to us. (I cannot remember the exact phrase) and you are indebted to us. Your right is for us to manage you and once you respect our rights meaning when you accepted us as caliphs, it would be obligatory upon us to carry out our duty in regards to you. Wassalām.

Two sentences: we have a right that is the caliphate and you, as a people, have a right to be maintained by a caliph. You people must give our right and if you give our right, we have a duty to fulfil towards you and we will fulfil it. No thanking Ma’mūn and nothing else. The content was not in tune with the spirit of a ceremony held for a newly-elected crown prince. This story then carries on the same way. Imām al-Ridā is a crown prince by so-called formalities who is not willing to interfere in any jobs. In case he is forced to interfere, he gets involved in such a way that does not fulfil Ma’mūn’s intentions. Just like the story of ‘Īd Prayers when Ma’mūn sends somebody to the Imām and the Imām says, “We had a deal with you which was not getting me involved in anything.” He replied, “But, because you are not getting involved people are making accusations towards me. Now there is no harm in this one duty.” The Imām says, “If I do this, I have to do it according to my grandfather’s customs and not the customs that are common today.”

p: 142

Ma’mūn says, “Alright.” The Imām leaves his home. Such an upheaval was formed in the city that made them return the Imām from half way.

Therefore, the issue is definite to this extent that Imām al-Ridā was brought to Marw forcefully and the title crown prince was imposed on him. They threatened to murder and after this threat the Imām agrees under the condition that he does not get involved in any practical duties and he later did not interfere and kept a low profile. This was in such a way that, in brief it proved the Holy Imāms not to go with them and them not to go with us.

part of the Islamic territory. As soon as you enter Rey borders, from there onwards meaning the part of Iraq which was previously the capital and also Hijāz and Yemen and Egypt and Syria, all had different situations. They were not keen on following the desires of the Iranian or Khorāsānī people and had rather opposite desires to them.

This means, even if we assume that this was the case and was put into practice and Imām al-Ridā was the caliph in Khorāsān, Baghdad would have stood up against him very strongly in the same way when the news of Imām al-Ridā’s acceptance of the position of crown prince reached Baghdad, and the ‘Abbāsīds were informed about what Ma’mūn had done, they immediately deposed Ma’mūn’s representative and gave oath of allegiance to one from among themselves (Banī al-‘Abbās) who was called “Ibrāhīm bin Shiklah”, even though he was incompetent for the task. They announced riot and said we refuse to accept the ‘Alawīs. Our ancestors have drudged and toiled for one hundred years, now hand over the caliphate to the ‘Alawīs? Baghdad would have rebelled and following that, lots of other places would have rebelled. This, however, is just an assumption and yet the basis of this assumption has not been proven. Thus, the saying that Fadl ibn Sahl Dhū al-Riyāsatayn was a Shī‘ah and did all this out of sincerity and the respect he had towards al-Ridā is not acceptable. There is room to doubt whether the initiative was his or not? Secondly: assuming the initiative was his, what is more probable is that Fadl ibn sahl who had recently converted to Islam wanted to turn Iran to the way it was before Islam by this means.(1)

He thought to himself, now Iranians will not accept this as they are true Muslims and truly belive in Islam. It was enough to name fighting against Islam to raise their opposition. He thought to himself to get rid of the ‘Abbāsīd Caliph through a man who was reputable himself. He thought of bringing Imām al-Ridā on the job and later entangle him with the trouble of ‘Abbāsī oppositions from outside and from inside prepare the basis for returning Iran to how it was in the age before (i.e. the Zoroastrian era). If this assumption is correct, the duty of Imām al-Ridā would be to cooperate with Ma’mūn to crack down the bigger danger; meaning the danger of Fadl ibn Sahl is one hundred percent bigger than the danger of Ma’mūn to Islam, because no matter what Ma’mūn was a Muslim caliph.

p: 144

I must also say that we should not think that all of the caliphs, who were against the Imām, martyred them and are all on the same level. What is, therefore, the difference between Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiyah and Ma’mūn? They were as different as chalk from cheese. On this level, meaning the level of caliphs and kings, Ma’mūn is one of the best caliphs and kings from a scientific, as well as political, point of view. The same goes for aspects relative to justice and oppression, management and usefulness towards people’s living standards. He was a very intellectual man. This massive civilization in which we pride ourselves was created by this very Ma’mūn and Hārūn. That is to say, they had an extra ordinary broad-mindedness and intellectuality that made most of the duties they fulfilled a case of pride for the Muslim World. The issue of ‘kingdom is infertile’ and Ma’mūn uprising because of kingdom and kingship against his beliefs and poisoning the Imām he believed was one issue and the other parts another issue.

If, in any case, the issue of Imām al-Ridā’s heir-apparency had been intiated by Fadl ibn Sahl, and, as the evidents have proven, Fadl ibn Sahl had evil intentions, then the Imām must have taken Ma’mūn’s side. Our narrations can confirm that Imām al-Ridā had more hatred towards Fadl ibn Salh than he had towards Ma’mūn. At times, where there was a disagreement between Fadl ibn Sahl and Ma’mūn, the Imām would take Ma’mūn’s side.

It has been mentioned in our narrations, Once, Fadl ibn Sahl and another person called “Hishām ibn Ibrāhīm” went to Imām al-Ridā and said, ‘The caliphate is your right. They are all usurpers. Give us your consent and we will kill Ma’mūn. You will then officially be the caliph.’ The Imām repudiated the two strongly and made them realize that they had made a mistake. They immediately went to Ma’mūn and said, ‘We were with ‘Alī ibn Mūsā. We wanted to test him and made this offer to him to see if he has good intentions towards you or not, we realized that he has good intentions. We told him that come and cooperate with us to kill Ma’mūn. He strongly denied.’

Later, in a meeting Imām al-Ridā had with Ma’mūn (who had previous knowledge of what had happened), he disclosed the issue and said, ‘They came to me. They were lying, they were serious.’ Then, the Imām advised Ma’mūn to beware of them!”

According to these narrations Imām al-Ridā considered the danger of Fadl ibn Sahl more severe and serious. Therefore, assuming that the ‘crown

p: 145

prince’ initiative was Fadl ibn Sahl’s(1), Imām al-Ridā considers the position innovated by this man dangerous. He warned, “There are bad intentions involved. They want to use me to return Iran from Islam to Zoroastrianism.”

We are thus talking based on assumptions. If the intiative had been Fadl ibn Sahl’s and he truly was a Shī‘ah (as some European historians have said) Imām al-Ridā should have cooperated with him against Ma’mūn. And if the Zoroastrian spirit was involved, he (Imām al-Ridā) should cooperate with Ma’mūn against them to get rid of them. Our narrations mostly confirm the second assumption, meaning the assumption that the initiative was not Fadl ibn Sahl’s. Imām al-Ridā and Fadl were not on good terms and Ma’mūn was even warned of his danger by the Imām. This is an incontrovertible issue among our narrations.

The other assumption is that this was not Fadl ibn Sahl’s initiative and that it was Ma’mūn’s. If the initiative was Ma’mūn’s, why did Ma’mūn do such a thing? Did he have good intentions or did he have evil intentions? If he had good intentions, did he keep his good intentions till the end or did he eventually change his mind? It is unacceptable to say that Ma’mūn had good intentions and kept his good intentions till the end. This was never the case. We can at most say he had good intentions at the beginning but they changed in the end.

As we have already mentioned Shaykh Sadūq and apparently Shaykh Mufīd also believed this to be true. In his book entitled, “‘Uyūn Akhbār al-Ridā”, Shaykh Sadūq writes that Ma’mūn had good intentions at the beginning and had truly made an oath. When he found himself entangled in trouble with his brother Amīn, he made an oath that if Allah made him victorious over his brother Amīn, he would return the caliphate to its rightful owners. The reason why Imām al-Ridā refused was because he knew that Ma’mūn was under the influence of his emotions at the time and would later regret it. Of course, most of the scholars do not agree with Shaykh Sadūq and believe that Ma’mūn did not have good intentions from the beginning and a political ploy was involved. Now what was this political ploy? Did he want to diffuse the ‘Alawī movement in this way? Did he want to disrepute Imām al-Ridā? Because when they were aloof, they would continue to criticize their policies. He wanted the Imām involved in the system so that he, too, would have had

p: 146

enemies from among the people, just as what is usually done in politics. In order to disrepute an active and well-liked national critic, they give him a position only to sabotage his job later. First, they give him a position and then they cause disruption so that all those who were in favor of him turned away from him.

It is in our narrations that Imām al-Ridā said to Ma’mūn in one of his sayings, “I know you want to disrepute me by this!” And Ma’mūn got angry and upset and said, “What are these words that you are saying? Why are you making such accusations towards us?”

than staying alive. Therefore, the issue is either limited to a person getting killed or his toleration of a certain depravity, just as in Imām al-Husayn’s story. They wanted his oath of allegiance to Yazīd and it was the first time Mu‘āwiyah was practising the issue of crown prince. Imām al-Husayn opted to get killed rather than to give oath of allegiance. In addition, Imām al-Husayn was in a situation where the Muslim World was in need of an awakening by enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil, even at the cost of his blood. He did this and achieved some results. But was Imām al-Ridā in the same situation? Or, in other words, was he truly at a crossroad about whether it was permissible for him to get killed? One may reach a point where he is killed in spite of his free will, for example, by being poisoned which is historically incontrovertible. Most historians, even Shī‘ah historians like Mas‘ūdī(1), believe Imām al-Ridā left this world as a result of a natural death and that he was not killed. However, according to the famous Shī‘ah belief, Imām al-Ridā died as a result of being poisoned by Ma’mūn.

All right! An individual may be put in a situation where he gets poisoned in spite of his free will. Sometimes, however, he is in a situation where he has freedom of choice and has the liberty to choose one from between the other. He must choose either to get killed or take over the job. And do not tell me that everyone will eventually die! If I am certain that I will die at dawn today, but I am given the option to choose between getting killed and taking over a certain job, can I say that I am dying at dawn anyway and that these two remaining hours are not really worth it? I must evaluate, during the hours I have left to live, is choosing the other side [getting killed] worth losing my life with my own hands? Imām al-Ridā is given the freedom to choose between the two, either accept the heir-apparency, which was also incontrovertible historically, or get killed, so history can later condemn and find him guilty. In my view, he must definitely choose the first one. Why not choose the first one? Just because of cooperating with someone like Ma’mūn who we all know is not sin? The form of cooperation is the one that matters.

Cooperation with caliphs from the holy Imām’s point of view

We all know that during the time of the ‘Abbāsīds, despite all the strong oppositions our Imāms had towards the Caliphs, by prohibiting people from collaborating with them, in certain cases they recommended and even encouraged cooperation with their system (the ‘Abbāsīds) for the sake of acquiring certain Islamic goals.

p: 148

Safwān Jammāl who was one of the followers of Mūsā ibn Ja‘far lent out his camels to Hārūn for a Hajj pilgrimage. He then discusses this with Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far. The Imām tells him, “Every thing about you is good except for one thing.” He asks, “What is that?” The Imām replied, “Why did you rent out your camels to Hārūn?” He said, “But I did not do a bad thing! It was for a Hajj pilgrimage and not for bad purposes.” The Imām then said, “Then, perhaps some of the rent money is still due which you will receive later?” He said, “Yes.” Imām said, “If you were informed that Hārūn was going to get perished, would you become happy? Or would you rather he paid his debt to you and then die. Would you want him to survive for this cause?” He replied, “Yes.” The Imām then said, “Even this much agreement to the survival of a tyrant is a sin.”

Safwān is a devoted follower but has a lot of history with Hārūn. He immediately went and sold all his trade goods. He owned a business which provided transportation services. Hārūn was informed that Safwān had suddenly sold all his trade goods. Hārūn summoned him and said, “Why did you do such a thing?” He said, “I have grown old and I am not as flexible as I used to be. I cannot manage my family well. I have thought of completely giving up this job.” Hārūn said, “Tell me the truth.” He replied, “This is the truth.” Hārūn was very clever, he said, “Would you like to tell me what the story is? I think once you signed this contract with me, Mūsā ibn Ja‘far informed you of something.” He said, “No, there was no such thing.” Hārūn said, “Do not reject this in vain. If it was not for the many years of history I have had with you, I would have had you beheaded right here.”

The same holy Imām who prohibited people from collaborating with the caliphs, considering it forbidden, regarded certain cooperations permitted but only when the cooperation was intended for the interest of the Muslim society, to help reduce oppression and wickedness. His endeavors were in the way of his religious purposes. This, however, is not what Safwān Jammāl did. At times, a person cooperates with tyrant system so he can use this position to his own advantage. This is exactly what our jurisdictions allow, as well as the holy Imām’s normative practices and the Holy Qur’an.

The Imām then asked, “Is the one who is asked for cooperation better or one who has been demanded to cooperate?” They said, “The one who is asked.” The Imām said, “Truthful Yūsuf was a prophet.” The Egyptian ‘Azīz was a pagan and a non-believer. Yūsuf himself requested,

“He said, ‘Set me over the storehouses of the land. Lo! I am a skilled custodian’.”(1)

This was because he wanted to occupy a position which he could put to best use. In any case, the Egyptian King was a pagan, Ma’mūn is licentious Muslim. Yūsuf was a prophet, and I am the Prophet’s trustee. Yūsuf suggested it and I have been forced. One cannot be criticized just for the sake of this.”

Now, on the one hand, Imām Mūsā ibn Ja‘far strongly prohibits Safwān Jammāl, whose cooperation was only to their benefit by asking him, “Why did you lend out you camels to Hārūn?” On the other hand, the Imām encourages ‘Alī ibn Yaqtīn who denied being a Shī‘ah and had intriguing contacts with Ma’mūn to remain in the system but to continue to deny that he was a Shī‘ah by not letting anyone find out. Make wudū their way, pray as they do, conceal you Shī‘ism in the strictest of ways, but stay in their system so you can be active.

This is what logic permits. Any individual with any religion must allow his people to enter the enemy’s system in order to help maintain their religion on the condition that their purpose is for the sake of religion not personal benefits. This means to use a system for one’s own purposes and not be used by that system for the system’s goals. The two are different: one is being part of the system, employing the system’s force in the way of his interests and to the advantage of the goals he has.

In my opinion, if someone claims that even this much should not be there, then this is a kind of pointless dogmatism and stagnation. This is how all the holy Imām’s were; from one side they strongly prohibited cooperation with the Umayyad and ‘Abbāsīd systems, even if people made excuses such as ‘if we don’t do it, someone else will ultimately do it,’ they would say, “Everyone should not do it. This is not an excuse. When no one does it, the system will cripple.”

p: 150

From the other side, they encouraged those who followed the principle of using the system. They were in the system for the sake of their own goals. When they were in the Umayyad or the ‘Abbāsīd systems, they received encouragements from the Imāms. Examples of such people are “‘Alī ibn Yaqtīn” or “Ismā‘īl ibn Bazī‘”. Narrations which admire and praise such people are amazing. They have been introduced as first class saints of Allah. Their narrations are quoted by Shaykh Ansārī in “Makāsib” when he is discussing the issue of “undertaking a task from a tyrant” [wilāyat-e jā’ir].

Sabi’īs and the Buddhists and invited Imām al-Ridā to speak to all of them. In those sessions, Imām al-Ridā truly confirms his scientific qualifications and was of a lot of service to Islam. In fact, he used his crown prince post unofficially. He did not undertake those tasks but at the same time used his position this way.

There are many differences between Imām al-Ridā’s circumstances in relation to Ma’mūn’s and Imām ‘Alī’s circumstances in relation to Mu‘āwiyah. Imām ‘Alī permitted Mu‘āwiyah to be his representative, as someone appointed from his behalf. Therefore, an oppressor like Mu‘āwiyah fulfilled the role of ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib’s deputy. But in the case of Imām al-Ridā: he should have left Ma’mūn on his own for a while which meant not creating any obstacles on his way.

In general, logically as well as lawfully, there are many overall differences between the times when we want to influence the formation of corruption—in which case we have one duty—and times when we want to prevent the spread of corruption which is present—in which case we have another duty. I will explain both situations with an example. When I intentionally cause an overflow of water in your yard by leaving the tap open and by doing so, I create destruction, here I am the warrantor of your yard, because I was involved in its destruction. Another time, when I am passing by your house and I see that has been left open and water has reached the base of your wall, I have a moral duty to close this tap and do you service. If I do not do this, your property will be damaged as a result. Here, this duty is not my obligation. I said this because there are a lot of differences between a task that is carried out by an individual and a task that is carried out by one person and stopped by someone else.

‘Alī was superior to Mu‘āwiyah. Mu‘āwiyah’s consolidation meant that ‘Alī had accepted Mu‘āwiyah as his representative. But Ma’mūn’s consolidation by Imām al-Ridā meant that Imām al-Ridā could not object to Ma’mūn’s actions for a while. These are two different obligations. There, ‘Alī is superior whereas in Imām al-Ridā’s case the story is the opposite. Ma’mūn is superior in power.

The Imām’s temporary cooperation with Fadl ibn Sahl or as you said [Ma’mūn’s consolidation by Imām al-Ridā] meant that he had to refrain from objecting to Ma’mūn’s actions temporarily. There are no problems in keeping silent for a bigger interest and awaiting a better opportunity. In Mu‘āwiyah’s case, the issue is not Imām ‘Alī’s disagreement with his leadership only for one day (this is, of course, another issue about which the Imām said: “I will not consent to an oppressor’s leadership even for one day.”) The issue was that if the Imām was to keep Mu‘āwiyah, he would grow stronger day by day and not revert from his aims. The assumption here, however, is that they must have waited until Ma’mūn grew weaker by the

p: 153

day while they became more powerful. These two cases are, therefore, incomparable.

Question: My question was related to Imām al-Ridā’s poisoning because during your speech you said that it was not clear if Imām al-Ridā was poisoned. The fact is that as more days passed, it became more and more clear that the caliphate was Imām al-Ridā’s by right and Ma’mūn intentionally poisoned the Imām. Their reason was Imām al-Ridā’s age. Imām al-Ridā left this world at the age of fifty two. It is very unlikely for an imām who observes all aspects concerning his health and hygiene and who is not on the two extremes like us, to die at the age of fifty two. Also, the famous narration says, “There is none among us who was neither killed nor murdered.” Therefore, this matter is unquestionable from the Shī‘ah point of view. The author of Murawwij al-Dhahab (Mas‘ūdī) made a mistake, this is no reason for us to say that Imām al-Ridā was not poisoned; rather, the view of the majority of Shī‘ah historians is that Imām al-Ridā was definitely poisoned.

Answer: I did not say Imām al-Ridā was not poisoned. I personally approve of your view based on the collective evidences. The evidences show that he was poisoned and one of the main reasons for it was the uprising by the ‘Abbāsīds in Baghdad. Ma’mūn poisoned Imām al-Ridā while going from Khorāsān to Baghdad and was being constantly informed of Baghdad’s situation. They reported to him that upheaval had taken over Baghdad. He knew that he could not depose the Imām and go there in such circumstances, because it would become very difficult. In order to prepare the basis for going to Baghdad and to tell Banī al-‘Abbās that the job had been done (murdering Imām al-Ridā), he poisoned Imām al-Ridā. This was the fundamental reason they mentioned, which is also acceptable and in accordance with history. This means Ma’mūn realized that going to Baghdad would not have been possible as well as the continuation of the position of crown prince (even though Ma’mūn was younger than Imām al-Ridā. He was about twenty eight and Imām al-Ridā was about fifty five years old. At the beginning, Imām al-Ridā had told Ma’mūn: I am older than you and will die before you). Therefore, if he had gone to Baghdad in such circumstances, it is impossible that Baghdad would have surrendered and a massive war would have taken place. He saw the dangerous situation facing him. This is why he also decided to take out Fadl ibn Sahl as well as Imām al-Ridā. He got rid of Fadl in the Sarakhs Bath House.

p: 154

So much is known that when Fadl was in the Bath House, a group of men with swords rushed into the Bath House and then left him there in pieces. It was later rumoured that there was a group who had a grudge against him (incidentally one of his own cousins was also among the group who murdered him) and defiled his blood. However, it seems that this was also Ma’mūn’s doing. He realized that Fadl had gained a lot of power and would cause trouble. So, he got rid of him. After Sarakhs, they came to Tūs.

Reports were constantly arriving from Baghdad. He realized that he could not enter Baghdad with Imām al-Ridā, an ‘Alawī crown prince. This is why he killed Imām al-Ridā right there.

Once we say that an issue is incontrovertible from our point of view. According to Shī‘ah narrations, there is no doubt that Imām al-Ridā was poisoned by Ma’mūn. This, however, is not the view of other historians. For example a European historian does not accept this. He studies the historical evidences and comes to the conclusion that the phrase “it is said” [qīla] has been written in history. Most Sunnī historians, who have quoted this event, wrote, “Imām al-Ridā came to Tūs, fell ill and passed away.” As such, “It is said [qīla]” that he was poisoned. This is why I wanted to discuss this issue based on a non-Shī‘ah rationale; otherwise, all the evidences show that Imām al-Ridā had been poisoned.

p: 155

p: 156

imprisoned or if he was free, he was forbidden to socialize and forbidden any visits. It was a bizarre situation.

It seems, as you know, that each of the holy Imāms had a certain quality that was more apparent in them. Khwājah Nasīr, in his twelve-verse poem, has described each of the holy Imāms with their special quality. The holy being of Imām al-‘Askarī was distinguished by dignity and so-called good looks. The greatness and dignity reflecting on his face was in such a way that whoever visited him would get influenced by his appearance even before the Imām said a word. This story is fully specified in the majority of narrations. Even the enemies, who constantly pursued the Imām and were sometimes taking the Imām to prison, could not resist paying their respect towards him when confronting the Imām.

In this relation, “Muhaddith Qummī” narrates a story from Ahmad ibn ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn Khāqān in his book entitled, “Al-Anwār al-Bahiyyah”. Ahmad ibn ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn Khāqān was the son of the minister al-Mu‘tamid ‘Alī Allāh. He quotes from his father a story in which he was also present. It is an extremely amazing story which at the moment I have not got time to narrate.

It was wide spread among people and they all knew that al-Mahdī of the Nation will emerge from the backbone of this holy existence. This was the main reason for the extreme surveillance of the Imām. The same thing Pharaoh did with Banī Isrā’īl when he had heard that a birth from among Banī Isrā’īl would cause his downfall. He killed all the new-born boys of Banī Isrā’īl and only kept the girls alive. He had appointed some women to go to the houses of Banī Isrā’īl and to find out which of the women were pregnant and keep them under surveillance.

This is exactly what the caliphate system did with Imām al-‘Askarī. How good Mawlawī says,

You attacked the hidden prisoners,

To close the way on the concealed one.

This foolish man never thought that if this were true, could he stop a divine order? Once in a while, they would send some more people to search the Imām’s house. This was done especially when the Imām passed away, because they were often hearing that Imām al-Mahdī had been born.

You all have heard the story of the Imām’s birth when Allah, the Almighty, veiled the birth of this holy being and only a few people found out during his

p: 158

birth. He was six when his great father passed away. During his childhood the special Shī‘ahs who came from different places, the Imām would introduce him to those special followers. The general public was not aware of this but finally the news that a son is born for Hasan al-‘Askarī and they are hiding him spread among people.

They would sometimes send somebody to the Imām’s house to find this child and, in their thoughts, get rid of him. But, when Allah wants something, can the servant do anything against it? Meaning when the divine decree has been decided for something, a human being can no longer have any role there. After the Imām’s death and coincidently with his demise, their officers poured into the Imām’s house and thoroughly searched it. They sent their woman spies to inspect all the women, whether a slave girl or not, to see if there were any pregnant women among them. They suspected one of the slave girls to be pregnant. They took her and kept her for a year. Then, they realized that they had made a mistake. The mother of the holy being of Imām al-‘Askarī is called “Hudayth”. She was famously known as “Jaddah” (grandmother) because she was the grandmother of the Imām of the Time (may Allah hasten his glorious advent). There are other women in history who were famous because of the prestige of their grandchild and they are called Jaddah. One such woman is the grandmother of Shāh ‘Abbās. There are two schools in Isfahān by the name of Jaddah. A woman whose fame is because of her grandchild will inevitably become famous as Jaddah. This honorable woman became famous by the title Jaddah. But it was not only being a grandmother that made her famous. She had a certain status, greatness and a special personality which have been written.

The late Muhaddith Qummī (may he reside in Allah’s paradise) wrote in “Al-Anwār al-Bahiyyah”, “She was the Shī‘ah shelter after Imām al-‘Askarī.” In other words, this honorable woman was the Shī‘ah refuge. Inevitably, in that time (because Imām al-‘Askarī was twenty eight, when he passed away and if we also calculate the age of Imām al-Hādī), she was a woman of fifty to sixty years of age. This woman was so learned and great that when a Shī‘ah came across a problem, he would present it to this woman.

A man said, “I went to visit Imām al-‘Askarī’s aunt; i.e. Hakīmah Khātūn, the daughter of Imām al-Jawād. I went and spoke to her in relation to the dogmas and beliefs and the issues of Imamate and etc. She spoke about her beliefs until she got to Imām al-‘Askarī and said, ‘At present, his child, who is hidden and in occultation, is my Imām.’ I said, ‘Now that he is in occultation, who do we refer to if we have any problems?’ She replied,

p: 159

‘Refer to Jaddah.’ I said, ‘How strange! The Imām passed away and made a will to a woman?’ She replied, ‘Imām al-‘Askarī did the same thing Imām al-Husayn did. The real trustee of Imām al-Husayn was ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn, but did he not leave most of his will with his sister Zaynab? Al-Hasan ibn Al-‘Askarī did exactly the same thing. His inward trustee is this child who is hidden but he could not overtly say he is my trustee. He had ostensibly appointed this awesome woman as his trustee.’”

By Your Name, O the Great, the Most Magnanimous, the All-mighty, the Most Glorious, the Most Generous, O Allah!

O Allah! Make us appreciative of Islam and the Qur’an.

O Allah! Make us be grateful for our Prophet.

O Allah! Make us appreciate the pure Ahl al-Bayt.

Shine the beams of love and spiritual knowledge on our hearts.

Shine the beams of love and knowledge of the Prophet (s) and his family in our hearts.

Make our deeds liable for your divine interventions, absolute mecy and your forgiveness.

p: 160

“O Prophet! Indeed, we have sent thee as a witness, as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner. And, as a summoner unto Allah by His permission, and as a radiant lamp.”(1)

And about the second reason, it is said in the Holy Qur’an,

“Certainly, We sent Our messengers with manifest proofs, and revealed with thement down with them the Scripture and the Balance, so that mankind may maintain justice; and We sent down iron, wherein is mighty power and many uses for mankind, and so that Allah may know those who help Him and His messenger, thought unseen. Indeed, Allah is Strong, Almighty.”(2)

See how explicitly the Qur’an states the favor of the prophets and even their mission to establish justice among mankind? In this verse, it says: we sent our messengers with clear reason and with them we sent the Scripture, commandments and writings with a balance (which means just rules and regulations). What for?

“… So that mankind may maintain justice.”(3)

So, all individuals behave justly and the principles of justice are established among mankind. Therefore, the issue of establishing justice was the main and general aim of all the prophets. In other words, according to the exact sayings of the Holy Qur’an, the prophets came and had a mission and a message which was Justice.

The second matter which I must mention here is this: the issue of justice (that is the universal justice and common justice not the relative or individual justice)—by justice we mean that there will come a day in this world for mankind when all traces of tyranny, oppression, discrimination, war, hatred, bloodshed or exploitation and their tools such as lies, hypocrisy and deception will ultimately be nonexistent. Will man ever see this day? Is this only a wish that will never come true? Is it even possible for some who does not have a spiritual disposition to say: I do not deny the universal justice, I am not a supporter of widespread oppression as the basis for our world but I believe that our world is so ominous, shallow and gloomy that there will never be a place for universal or true justice, peace, purity or true humanity?

p: 162

There will never be a day that human beings will actually live together in peace. The world is the place of darkness and oppression, all the oppression will be compensated in the next world. Justice only belongs to the next world.

This idea exists among non-Muslims and people of other religions. One of the main advantages of Islamic belief (and especially in the eyes of the Shī‘ahs in relation to Islam) is: do not be pessimistic. The age of war and fighting, the age of moral corruption and the age of darkness are temporary. The final outcome is luminosity and justice. Even if this teaching is present in other doctrines, it is not as certain and clear as it is in the Shī‘ah doctrine.

Another matter regarding the future of man in this world is goodness, death of oppression and the advent of justice. If man were to contemplate the Qur’an, he would see that the Qur’an emphasizes and confirms this matter and also gives glad tidings about the future of the world. There are numerous verses in this regard one of which is the verse which I recited at the beginning of my speech,

“Allah hath promised those of you who have faith and do righteous deeds that He will surely make them succeed (the present rulers) in the earth, just as He made those who were before them succeed (others) and He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. And those who disbelieve; henceforth, they are the miscreants.”(1)

It has been promised to the faithful and the people whose deeds are righteous and admirable that the end of the world is in their hands. The one who will finally rule the world is the divine religions, spirituality and “There is no God but Allah.” [lā ilāha illā Allāh]. Materialism and material worshipping and selfishness will be destroyed. The end of the world is security,

“And that He will give them in exchange safety after their fear.”(2)

The world’s destiny is divine unity to all its degrees.

Therefore, we used two topics from the Holy Qur’an: firstly, that the main reasons for the existence of prophets are two: divine unity [tawhīd] and the establishment of justice. The first reason is related to man’s relationship with God and the second is related to the relationship of man with his kind.

p: 163

The issue of justice is not just a dream or a wish, it is a reality that the world is going towards; it is the divine custom; God will eventually dominate justice over this world and man will rule over this world for centuries and centuries (which we do not know how long this could be. Maybe a million, maybe ten millions or even one hundred million years), but a mature and true human being, in whom darkness and oppression is present today, does not exist.

My discussion is about this topic: will universal justice be established in this world? I will especially discuss one aspect that is: on what basis does Islam claim that universal justice will be established in the world?

For this I must explain three subjects; the first is, ‘What is justice?’ Second, ‘Is there an inclination towards justice in man or do tendencies toward justice essentially not exist in the human nature? Is it true that any time justice is given to man it has been done so by force and imposed upon him? Can it be possible for man to acquire justice without his own consent and desire?’ And the third is, ‘Is justice practical or not? And if it was to become practical, what mean would be required to make it possible?’

I do not want to discuss this issue because then I will not be able to finish my discussion. This saying is rejected. Justice itself is real because “entitlement” is real. How is entitlement real? Entitlement has taken form the text of creation because creation is real. Any creature in the textual content of creation has some merits and qualities. As a result of his deeds and activities, man creates certain eligibilities. And the justice defined as giving the right to its rightful owner, will be meaningful. Those sayings are delusive words.

justice became powerful, he would do the same things the other powerful people do.

The famous German philosopher, Nietzsche says: So many times it happened that I laughed when I heard the weak talking of justice and justice seeking. When I look, I see that they say justice because they have no claws. I say to them: Oh you reckless, if you had claws, you would never say such words. These philosophers say that man basically has no faith and believes in justice.

Those who do not believe in justice to be something in the human nature can be divided into two groups: the group who claims that man should not go after justice even as a dream, one must go after power and force. Justice is nonsense. You should not even dream about it. They use an expression which goes along with our definition. The brief version of this expression is: two knots of horn are preferred to a meter of tail, where the horn represents power and the tail represents justice. What is justice? Go after power. Nietzsche and Machiavelli are from this group.

familiarize man with the fact that the interests of an individual lie in the public interest.

enhance. Their intellect and deeds will also increase. When his holy being will reappear, there will no longer be wolf and sheep relation in the world. Even wolves will live at peace and purity with one another. Which wolves? Is it the wolves that live in the desert or the human-figured wolves? This means wolves will no longer have a wolfish nature.

Before I read a part of the other numerous indications of the situations in the time of the Imām for you, I must raise a point:

rationalize the other stages in the appearance of man himself, a creature with such power, wisdom and will power.

Is the issue of revelations a common affair? Is the issue of man reaching a stage where he can get orders from beyond nature any less than the issue of one living for one thousand and three hundred years? This is basically a normal and common issue. It is something that man is now going after and there may even be a natural law for it. Humans today are attempting to create methods (with certain drugs or certain formulas) to extend man’s lifespan. Nobody can say whether or not this is the natural law for man to live one hundred, two hundred or five hundred years. It is true that the human body cells have a certain life cycle, but this is when the situation is limited. Maybe one day, a method will be discovered that is very simple yet increases man’s life by five hundred years or more. This is not something that one can doubt. Allah, the Almighty, has always shown that when the world’s status reaches a certain stage, a sudden change will take place in a way as if a hand had come out of the invisible and intervened in the situation in such a way that was not at all possible to predict using natural laws. Therefore, this topic has no ambiguity that one needs to think about or, God-forbid, even doubt. Religion has been created for the very purpose of opening man’s eyes and removing all the barriers which obstruct the progression of man’s thought. What will happen in that age, the age of evolution of science, wisdom, morals and the society? I will explain this to you in an example.

geographical locations but he spoke of this out of faith and belief. As I said, this matter is not specific to the Shī‘ahs. The Sunnīs also believe in this and it has been repeated in their sources many times.

Now observe how clearly the Prophet sees that day and the age of man’s perfection. He says, “Al-Mahdī will come at a time when there are strong disagreements among my nation and when constant earthquakes occur.”

Note: By earthquakes we do not mean those which result from tectonic stress.

Then he will fill the world with justice and fariness after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.

When this container has been filled with oppression and tyranny, he will fill the world with justice and fairness.

Both Allah and those beings in the skies and the people on earth are pleased with him. They say, “Praise be to Allah, who removed the evil of these oppressions from us.” He then says, “He will divide wealth in the correct way.”(1)

The companions asked, “Oh Messenger of Allah! What do you mean in the correct way?” He said, “He will divide it fairly and equally. And Allah will fill the hearts of the Islamic nation with opulence (spiritual wealth).”

That means do not think that this opulence and wealth is the same as the materialistic wealth. The hearts will be filled with spiritual wealth. Poverty, need, inferiority, misery, hatred, jealousy and everything else will be removed from the face of the Earth. In Nahj al-Balāghah, Imām ‘Alī says, “Till war wages among you with full force, showing forth its teeth, with udders full of milk, milking it is sweet but it has a bitter outcome.”

He predicts that before the reappearance of Imām al-Mahdī, there will be strange tumults, massive and dangerous wars in the world. He says, “War will stand on its feet, show its teeth like a predator. It will show the milk in its breasts which means the combative and instigators believe that the war will be to their advantage. However, they do not know that the end of the world is to their disadvantage.”

“Milking it is sweet but, the outcome is bitter.” “Beware, it will be tomorrow and the morrow will come soon with things which you do not know.”

p: 171

“Be informed that tomorrow is pregnant with things that you cannot predict or even be familiar with. But know that it is there and tomorrow will bring it with itself.” “The Man in power, not from this crowd, will take to task all those were formerly appointed for their ill deeds.”

The first thing the divine ruler will do is: he will catch the rulers and agents one by one and ameliorate his agents and the world will be amended. “And the earth will pour forth its eternal treasures.”

The earth will give out parts of its heart, which means the earth will give out whatever blessings it has inside it including any minor talents that you can imagine. It will give out everything. It will give out whatever it has begrudged till today. “And fling before him easily her keys.”

The earth will come like a surrendered servant and hand over its keys to his authority (these are all paraphrases and expressions). It means there will be no secrets in the nature that does not get exposed in that time, “He will show you the just way of behaviour.”

He will then show you what true justice means. He would show you that all the utterances about freedom and human rights posters were all lies. All the utterances about peace were lies; they were all dissent and selling barely pretending its wheat. “And he will revive the Qur’an and the Sunnah which have become lifeless (among people).”

He would revive the rules of the Scripture and customs which have been abandoned or destroyed. He also says, “If al-Qā’im rises, he will rule with justice.”

Each of the infallible Imāms have a title; for example, the title of ‘Alī is: ‘Alī al-Murtadā; Imām al-Hasan: al-Hasan al-Mujtabā; Imām al-Husayn: Sayyid al-Shuhadā; and the rest of the Imāms: al-Sajjād; al-Bāqir; al-Sādiq; al-Kāzim; al-Ridā; al-Taqī; al-Naqī; al-Zakī, al-‘Askarī. The Imām of the Time has title special to him, a title which has been taken from the concept of rising; the one who will rise in the world: al-Qā’im.

We basically know Imām Mahdī by rising and justice. Every Imām is known by a feature. This Imām is recognised with rising, “There will no longer be any cruelty and oppression.”

All the routes, the routes on earth, sea and sky will become safe because the source of all those insecurities were frustrations and injustices. When justice is brought about, there will no longer be any reasons for insecurities because the human nature has a tendency to seek justice.

p: 172

“The earth will bring about all its blessings.” “Do you know what the people are upset with in those says? They are upset only because they want to give out charity and be of help but they cannot find a needy person. There will not be a single poor on the earth.” And about security, he says, “A weak old woman will travel from the east to the west of the world without any trouble and difficulty.”(1)

A lot has been said about justice: about peace and tranquility; about freedom and security; fair division of wealth and abundance of fruits and tools—tools for farming, etc. Corruption will disappear and man will have hatred towards lying, backbiting, false accusations and oppression.

Upon which philosophy is this based? Islam says that the future of man is justice but it does not say that this final justice concludes in that which man’s thought leads him to; i.e. that his interests lie in the safeguarding of other people’s interests. No, [at that time] justice will be very special to mankind object of worship. This means that his spirit will be upgraded, his training will be completed and there will not be anything but global justice on the basis of faith, worshipping of God and knowledge of God and finally the creation of a government based on the Qur’an.

We Muslims are lucky that, contrary to all the pessimism towards humanity which has been created in the western world, we are optimistic to man’s future. Russell says in his book entitled, “New Hopes”, “Today, majority of scientists have lost hope in man and believe that science has reached a stage that will soon cause man’s destruction.” He says, “One of these people is Eienstein. Eienstein believes that man is not far from the grave he has digged for himself.”

Man has reached a stage that pressing several buttons is equal to the earth’s destruction. And if we truly do not believe in God and his hidden assistance and if the reassurance that the Qur’an gives about man’s future had not made us certain then that would mean that they are right. There has not been a day when horrific destructive tools of great strength had not been built. Look at how much man’s destructive ability has multiplied since twenty years ago, after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. We have reached a stage when we constantly hear that there are no longer winners and losers in this world. If a Third World war were to take place, then it would no longer be a question of whether America, Russia or china wins. If a Third World war

p: 173

takes place, the main loser will be the earth and the human race. There are no winners.

We believe that these falls had taken place in the past as well. The divine decree is above all these,

“And you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, whereat He saved you from it.”(1)

We have been told, “The best of deeds is awaiting the reappearance.” This optimism and awaiting the reappearance generally have superiority over all our other deeds. Why? Because, this is faith at its highest level of excellence.

O Allah! Turn us into true waiters of Imām Mahdī (may Allah expedite his glorious advent).

O Allah! Grant us the eligibility to feel the rightful government.

Oh Allah! We ardently desire that in (his) kind, just and fair period Thou should reactivate Islam and stimulate its followers and humble and humiliate the impostors. Include us among those who invite people unto Thy obedience and lead them to Thy approved path.

p: 174

the outcome that is derived from the holy being of the Imām of the Time is something that is definitely going to take place in the future. One such āyah is,

“Verily, we have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder: ‘Indeed My righteous servants shall inherit the earth’.”(1)

Allah says in the Qur’an that We have in the past (after dhikr where they have said it means) written in the Psalms, after announcing it in the Torah [Zabūr] that,

“Indeed My righteous servants shall inherit the earth.”(2)

This does not pertain to a specific area or city. Thought is as extensive as the earth: the earth will not always be in the hands of the powerful oppressive tyrants. This is a temporary matter. In the future, the pious will be the leaders. They are going to rule the whole earth. There is not even the slightest shred of doubt in this issue.

It has been mentioned in the Holy Qur’an that Islam will become the universal religion of mankind and that all other religions will perish or be overshadowed by Islam which is another one of the outcomes of the holy being of the Promised al-Mahdī.

“He is it who hath sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the idolaters may be averse.”(3)

He sent this religion through His Prophet so in the end He will make it victorious over all other religions in this world, which means all the people in the world will become the followers of this religion (and other verses as such). After the Qur’anic verses comes the issue of the Prophet’s sayings. What has the Prophet said in this regard? If the sayings related to the Promised al-Mahdī were exclusive to Shī‘ah narrations, then there will be a point for skeptics to be critical of. If the issue of the Promised al-Mahdī is real, then the Prophet must have mentioned it; and if the Prophet has mentioned it, then it should have been narrated by other Islamic sects and not only the Shī‘ahs alone.

p: 176

Coincidentally, narrations about the Promised al-Mahdī have not only been narrated by the Shī‘ahs. The Sunnīs also have narrations regarding this issue if not more than the Shī‘ahs. Books have been written in this regard which can bare witness to this fact. During the years we were in Qum, two books were written concerning this issue. One is by the late Āyatullāh Sadr (may God raise his status), which of course is written in Arabic and is entitled, “al-Mahdī” and has, I think, been published as well. In that book, all the narrations he has quoted are from Sunnī sources. When one studies it, he will see that the issue of the Promised al-Mahdī is more visible in the narrations quoted by the Sunnīs than those quoted by the Shī‘ahs.

There is also another book which, fortunately, is in Farsi, titled, “Muntakhab al-Athar”. It is written by one of the scholars of Qum Theological Center (who is still in

Qum) called, “Āqā Mīrzā Lutfullāh Sāfī” (Golpāygānī). It was written under the supervision of the late Āyatullāh Bojnūrdī; that is, he gave a general request for this book, chose the design, layout and customs of the book. It was followed up by this gentleman who later wrote the book. If you read this book, you will see that many Sunnī traditions have been quoted in it in this regard, for various definitions and contents.

I would like to stress that I do not want to touch upon these sayings or verses in much detail. The main question I would like to discuss is another aspect of this issue: what effect has this issue had on Islamic history?

When we study the Islamic history we see that apart from the narrations of the Prophet and Imām ‘Alī in this regard, events have been taken place in the Islamic history as a result of declarations about the Promised al-Mahdī.

those who are good people but idiotic and there are those who are clever but not religious, who only use religion as a tool for their worldly interests. Kumayl! I feel lonely. I do not have someone worthy of knowing the secrets I have in my heart.’ In the end he suddenly said, ‘But, of course, the earth will never stay empty.’ He said, ‘At the same time, the earth will not stay empty of Allah’s proof, either the evident proof or the proof that is hidden and concealed from eyes’.”

famously known as “Nafs Zakiyyah”. At the end of the Umawī era, the Hasanī sayyids rose (which has a long story). Even the ‘Abbāsīds gave oath of allegiance to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd. They also invited Imām al-Sādiq to a meeting and told him that they had planned to uprise and give their oath of allegiance to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd. “You are also a Hasanī sayyid, so give oath of allegiance”, they said. The Imām replied, “What are your intentions in this task?” If Muhammad wants to uprise under the slogan of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil, I will accompany him and will approve of him. But he is making a mistake, if he wants to uprise as the al-Mahdī of the Nation. He is not the al-Mahdī of the Nation, someone else is, and therefore I will never approve of this. This mistake may have, up to some extent, been made about ‘Abd Allāh al-Mahd, because he too had the same name as the Prophet and had a beauty mark on his shoulder.(1) People were saying, “Could this be a sign of him being the al-Mahdī of the Nation? Most people gave oath of allegiance to him under the title al-Mahdī of the Nation.”

It is then evident that the issue of the al-Mahdī of the Nation was so definite among Muslims that when someone who was a bit religious rose they would say, “He is the one, he is the al-Mahdī of the Nation that the Prophet foretold about.” This would not have happened, if the Prophet had not said so.

As I said the majority who gave oath of allegiance, believed they were pledging their allegiance with: the al-Mahdī of the Nation. People had heard the Prophet’s saying about al-Mahdī; however, since they would not fully investigate to find out more about the person caliming to be the al-Mahdī of the Nation, public mistakes were constantly made.

These all show that the issue of ‘the al-Mahdī of the Nation’ was so definite that left no place for doubt and hesitation. As far as I have researched, up to the time of Ibn Khaldūn, maybe not even one scholar had been found to have said, “The narrations about Mahdī have no basis.” They all had accepted it. If there was any disagreement, it was on minor things such as if al-Mahdī was this person or that person? Is he the son of Imām al-Hasan al-‘Askarī or not? Is he from the children of Imām al-Hasan or Imām al-Husayn? And, therefore, there was no hesitation in the reality of the al-Mahdī and him being from among the children of the Prophet and that his task is to fill the world with justice and equality.

There are many more historical facts we can list but I do not think that it would be necessary to mention all of them. I mentioned these facts because I wanted to say that the issue of the Promised al-Mahdī was certainly a definite matter for Muslims since the beginning of Islam and imitated major historical events from the second half of the first century.

I made an augury and it said a rescuer will come.

I am not happy nor am I safe from the fire in the land,

Moses will come here in the hope of a Qabas.

No one knows where the intended resting place is,

Just as much as the hearing of a holler of a bell.

Do not ask me about the nightingale of the Garden, because

I hear a cry coming from a cage.(1)

My discussion about the historical aspects of this issue has come to an end. Now, what kind of false claimant will be found after the Imām of the Time’s age is a story which I will not get into for the time being. I want exclusively dedicate the end of my speech to these three next topics.

The fact that after the world is filled with injustice and tyranny, the universal justice will be found has created an issue that is: on reliance upon this fact, some people are against any reform. They say the world must be filled with injustice and tyranny so that there will suddenly be a revolution and it will get filled with justice and fairness. Even if they do not mention it, deep in their hearts they are against reform. If they see somebody taking a step toward reform, they become upset. When they see that the society has become attracted to religion, they truly become upset. They say, “This should not happen.” They must get worse so that the Imām reappears. If we are suppose to do something so people come towards religion we have betrayed the reappearance of the Imām and have caused delay to the reappearance of the Imām. Is this really the way or not? I will give an explanation for this so the matter is cleared.

p: 184

The issue of Imām al-Mahdī’s reappearance is more similar to the ripening of a fruit rather than a bursting of an abscess. This is not because there are very few sins; rather, because the world has not yet reached that certain competence. Therefore, you see constantly in Shī‘ah narrations that when the three hundred and sixty minorities are found, the Imām will reappear. Yet still those three hundred and sixty minorities do not exist. That is to say, time must progress to an extent that it, in some opinions, becomes corrupted in any aspects or, to another view, those who want to form the government following him (Imām al-Mahdī) under his banner and his rein of power are brought into being. Such worthy men have yet not come into existence in the world.

Yes, “the task will get settled before it gets too chaotic”, but this chaos is a different chaos. Chaos will always be found in the world. After chaos comes organization. This organization then turns into chaos but a higher scale of chaos and not a low scale. That chaos will then again change into organization at a higher scale than the first level of organization. This organization then changes to chaos but again in a higher scale meaning this chaos after that organization is superior even over that organization (the one before it). Therefore, it can be said that man’s social movement is snail-shaped. This means it is an upward circular movement. At the time the social movement of man is turning, it is not turning on a horizontal surface but turning in an upward direction. Yes, the organization is constantly converting into chaos but at the same time chaos is on a higher scale. Undoubtedly, our world is one in which at the moment the authority is even out of the hands of its first class rulers. But this chaos on a worldly scale is as different as chalk from cheese, to the chaos in a village. Therefore, we are going towards chaos as well as organization.

When we go towards the reappearance of Imām al-Mahdī, at the same time, we go towards chaos because from organization one must go to chaos and then to organization again because it is chaos on a higher scale. When had such thoughts, which have emerged among men today, appeared hundred of years ago, let alone five hundred year ago? Nowadays, the world’s intellectuals say: the single solution of the miseries of man in the world today is forming a single universal government. Such thoughts never stroke the pale of man’s imagination before.

Thus, because we are going towards chaos and organization at the same rate, Islam never commands not performing duties. If it was other than this, it would have commanded to commit the forbidden and abandon obligations

p: 186

and say do not enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, do not discipline and train your children! Let corruption intensify! When you go after praying, fasting, enjoining what is good, writing books, speeches, and propagations, you are causing delay to the reappearance of the al-Mahdī. No, these kinds of reforms will make his reappearance closer just as those chaoses will bring the reappearance of the Imām closer. In no way must the issue of awaiting reappearance bring this thought to our minds that we are awaiting the reappearance so this duty is no longer on our shoulders (whether big or small). No duty will become invalidated.

There are other matters but our time is now finished and I must gradually end my speech. I will tell you my last thoughts:

which is the period when wisdom rules. This is how the human society is. The human society must plan three periods. One period is the time of legends, myths and as the Qur’an defines, the period of ignorance. The second one is the period of knowledge but knowledge and juvenility; that is to say ruling period of rage and desire. Truly on what axis is our age rotating? If one computes correctly, he will see that the rotation axis of our time is rage and lust more than anything else. Our time is the age of bombs (meaning rage) and the age of mini skirts (meaning lust). Will there come a time when neither legend nor rage, neither lust nor bombs rule and the age of wisdom, justice and spirituality prevail? Will it truly come? How can such a time not come? How could it be possible for Allah who created this world and created man as the most noble of all creations to suddenly overturn him before he has reached this complete maturity period?

Mahdism is, thus, a very big philosophy. Do you see how excellent the Islamic contents we have are? It is near the auspicious month of Ramadān. You will hopefully be successful in reading the Iftitāh Supplication during the nights of Ramadān. The end of this supplication is exclusive to the pure being of the Imām of the Time. I shall read those parts in conclusion as my end of session prayers,

Oh Allah! We ardently desire that in this kind, just and fair period, Thou should reactivate Islam and stimulate its followers and humble and humiliate the impostors, and include us among those who invite people unto Thy obedience and lead them to Thy approved path.

O Lord! Please place us among those who are subject to Your privilege and mercy in this world and the next world.

O Allah! We swear by Your Holy Essence and the truth of the saints of generosity to place us among those worthy of this big dream.

p: 188