In another narrative mentioned in the previous lesson, pertaining to Imam Ali (a.s)'s military excursion to Yemen, we saw that the Prophet sent two groups of soldiers to Yemen: One was under the command of the Imam and the other under the jurisdiction of Khaled Ibn Valid with the stipulation that if these two divisions should meet, their leadership would be taken over by Ali (a.s). Khaled, who possessed the habits and particularities of the ignorant Arabs, was angered by this order. Therefore after the completion of his mission he sent several persons to the Prophet with a letter of complaint against Ali (a.s).

Barideh, the companion who bore the letter said:

"I gave the letter I was carrying to the Holy Prophet. The letter was read to him. The Prophet became so enraged that I saw its traces in his blessed face. It was then that I said: "O' Holy Prophet! I seek refuge to you. Khaled sent the letter and ordered me to deliver it to you. I obeyed him because he was my commander". The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) then said: "Do not speak against Ali, he is of me and I am of him and he is your guardian, leader and authority after me". 153

In one of the texts of this Hadith something is added to the above. According to it, after Barideh saw the Prophets reaction and his great rage he begins to doubt his own faith in Islam. Because of this he says:

"O' Prophet of God! I swear you by the friendship between us---since I have enraged you --- give me your hand so that I may once again pledge my allegiance to Islam with you, and that my sins may be forgiven". 154

According to this narrative the Imam is the guardian, authority and master over the Muslims after the Prophet; precisely meaning the Prophets successor in the guardianship he has over the peoples lives and property --- of course, this power and authority being used in all aspects in the best interests of their religious and worldly duties.

In another narrative by Ibn Abbas we read that the Prophet had said to Amir al-Mu'meneen:

"Your are the master, guardian and authority of every believer after me". 155

In the fourth narrative, we observed that because the narrator had brought a complaint against the Imam to the Prophet, he says:

"No, don't speak like this regarding Ali. After me, he has the highest mastery, weight of judgement and strength of determination over the people".

On the basis of the narratives spoken of until now, we saw that the Prophet spoke of and described positions such as his Caliphate, ministry and executorship in relation to the Imam (Ali), introducing him as possessing those honours and positions and also saying that he is the Master of all believers after him.

In the story of the ring and its bestowal on a beggar in the mosque, which caused the revelation of this noble verse:

"Verily, your Master is only Allah and His Apostle and those who believe, those who establish prayers, and pay the Zakat while bowed (in worship)". 156

There is also mention of the Imams mastership over the nation with regard to which there have been many references made in the writings of the Imams mastership over the nation with regard to which there have been many references made in the writings of the Sunnite school. These were all narratives from the authoritative books of the Sunnite school, and they showed the final testimony of the Holy Prophet. As such, at the time of his death what happened? In those serious moments the Prophet wished to write down his last testimony which pertained to the peoples Caliph, executor and master, and have it witnessed.

According to the Prophets orders in times like these a letter would be written, he would stamp it, sign it, and have it witnessed and then for example he would have it sent to the Arab tribes or the leaders of other countries. In the last hours of his life he had this very intention but they didn't allow it and spoke to him in a way that endangered the foundation for the acceptance of his prophethood in the community. It was because of this that the Prophet prefered to remain silent.

We have also seen that the matter of the executorship was not only mentioned at this time but throughout the Prophets lifetime at all critical times. This matter was proclaimed at times of war, treatise and in hours of danger to Islams existence, in all of its aspects. This was done so often that these creditable texts have come down to us in the Sunnite schools most authoritative writings; despite all of the strangulation in subsequent eras, and the killings of the Ummayeds and Abbasids. Killings and pillage, with all of those amputations of legs and arms, done to prevent the narration of this heritage, so that it wouldn't gain circulation in following generations.

According to all of the proceeding research the fundamental beliefs of the Shiite school is that the Imamate is an appointment by God and the Prophet is the messenger of this order from God among the people.

May God make us one of the followers of Ahlu'l bait.

AMEN

We were discussing how the Islamic nation altered the last Prophets religious law (Shari'ah). We also saw how in the past the powerful of certain nations with the aid of Jewish Rabbis and priests altered the religious law of their own prophets to the point that nothing was left of that law which would cause the growth and guidance of the people. They covered so much truth with falsity and altered the divine truths to such an extent that if all of mankind endeavoured that could never arrive at the true law and way of God. It was at this time that God once again gave life and renewal to religion by sending the Arch Prophet (Ulul Azm). In the past nation divine wisdom deemed it appropriate that the Prophethood should end with that of Mohammad Ibn Abdullah (s.a.w). Also, by necessity of His lordship, the laws for perfecting mans way of life must be kept at his disposal. Under these circumstances, after the religion had been upturned by the powerful and evil, as the unchanging laws of creation dictated, what should the people do? There will never be another prophet and the people cannot live correctly without laws of guidance, so what must be done?

It was because of this that ,God renewed and established the religious law of the Last Prophet in the environs of this nation. Each of the Imams of Ahlu'l bait were a part in the re-establishment of true Islam in the nation; which will be studied after the discussion on concealment and alteration. We will see precisely how God re-established Islam with the treaty of Imam Hassan (a.s), the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (a.s), the imprisonment of Imam Musa ibn Ja'far (a.s), the speeches of Imam Baqir, Sadiq and Reza (a.s) and the occultation of Imam Hujjat ibn al-Hasan al-Askary.

In the proceeding discussion we spoke of means and agency the powerful in the nation resorted to in order to alter and separate true Islam from the community. That agency, was the prevention of narrating the Hadiths and quotations of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). I thought that the discussion we had on this topic was sufficient but from the question that were posed it became clear that the discussion on this matter must be enlarged.

The question posed on this matter was; why did the Caliphs and powerful in the nation prevent the narration of the Prophets words? In return I must ask if in principle this question is relevant or not? What do you mean by "Why"? Could anything justify this deed? Take for example Moses who was named prophet among the tribes of Israel to guide them. Now, the descendants of Aaron who were the peoples religious leaders after Moses say; No, do not repeat the words and opinions of Moses (a.s).

We see that this command could have no possible justification but even so we will look into the factors behind this prohibition and we will quote and assess the very words of this agents pertaining to their reasons for it:

1) Aishah said: My father had collected five hundred of the Prophets Hadiths in a book and had given it to me for safe-keeping. One night I noticed that he was very restless in bed, tossing and turning about and unable to go to sleep. I said: Is there a problem or some bad news that has made you so upset? In the morning he said: My daughter, bring me the Hadiths you have. Then he asked for fire and he burned the book containing the Prophets Hadiths. After burning the book he calmed down. I asked him the reason for this deed and he said: I was afraid that among the Hadiths I had written in this book there would be a Hadith that had no grounds and I had narrated it out of my trust in someone, and then I would be held responsible. 157

2) Historians narrate: During the era of his Caliphate Umar ibn Al-Khattab decided to gather and write down the Prophets Hadiths. He asked the Prophets companions for their general opinion and they all gave their ideas about it. For a month Umar deliberated on the matter and at last he arrived at his final decision. In the morning he informed the people of his final decision: I had been thinking of writing down the Prophets Hadiths but then I remembered that other nations before you had written books and had become so engrossed in them that they forgot their Divine scripture. I swear to God that I will not mix His scripture with anything. 158

We will look into both of these, Hadiths so that we may discover the reason the prohibition of the narration and written recording of the Prophets Hadiths. Primarily, these two Caliphs had the idea that if it was possible they should do something to gain control of the narration, propagation, and recording of the Prophets Hadiths. This in reality meant that only those Hadiths should be narrated and recorded which did not oppose the political policies of the Caliphate and government of the time. This was the first stage. But after much attention and deliberation; keeping Abu Bakr awake at night, and forcing Umar to undergo one months consideration and thought, they arrived at the conclusion that the controlled, limited propagation of Hadiths is impossible. If Abu Bakr was supposed to write down the Hadiths and then deliver them to the people, could it be said and could the people be made to believe that these alone are the Prophets Hadiths and other Hadiths are not the Prophets? Salman also says in relation to this: I remember the Hadiths and I write them down. Its not right that you should write them down while I may not. You understood the Prophet and I also understood him. You heard his words and saw his actions, I also heard and saw. Therefore our Hadiths are not at all different.

Abu Dharr can say the same thing. He will also be able to write down Hadiths, and no one will have the power to prevent the recorders of Hadiths from doing so. Ammar will also write them down. Meghdad will then say: I will also write them. Other companions will also have the same kind of remarks each in some way or form. Under such circumstances there will no longer be any excuse for the Caliph being able to record Hadiths while others may not. So, to begin with, the reason Abu Bakr began to record Hadiths himself, and the reason Umar told the people they could only narrate Hadiths related to acts of worship, 159 was because they wanted to control the Hadiths. However, when they realized that this way was practically impossible; Abu Bakr burned the Hadiths in the book he had written himself and Umar spoke to the people saying: O' People! I have heard that you possess certain books. The dearest of these books according to God is the one which is based on greater truthfulness and authority. Everyone possessing one of these books should bring it to me so that I may look it over and consider its (veracity). The people thought that he wished to read them and correct them and alleviate all controversy over them, they brought him their books and he burned them all. 160 Abu Bakr said: "I feared that I had heard a Hadith from someone I trusted but as a matter of fact that Hadith would be false. I didn't wish to be responsible for the promulgation for a false Hadith. If this was really true then why did he say at another time, Do not narrate Hadiths from the Prophet. 161 Does the narration of other persons, even reputable ones who themselves remembered the Prophets words, cause the Caliph to be responsible? He offers the excuse that: "because you differ with one another on the narrations of these Hadiths, in future generations their differences will be even more than yours". 162

We must learn the meaning of the words "differences" before we can arrive at the true meaning of Abu Bakrs statement. The variances of literal or written form in one Hadith is not seen as a "difference". In the terminology of the "study of Hadith" this type of difference is called "narration according to meaning", and there is no objection to it. This is because the original meaning is retained even though it might differ slightly from another in words or expressions. The Holy Quran itself contains many examples of this type of difference. For example in the Quran we read:

"Don't kill your children because of hunger". 163

and in another place

"Don't kill your children for fear of hunger".

These two verses are literally slightly different but their original meaning is the same and they had the same aim. They do not call this - a difference because it was only narrated according to its meaning can never be seen as a true "difference".

Now, let us see how these literal differences which result in narrations according to meaning come to be. This type of difference may have one of two reasons:

1) Sometimes the holy prophet spoke of some fact in different places at different times which of course was because of its importance. In these circumstances, every time the Prophet repeated his message he spoke using particular words and expressions. Therefore, one of his companions would narrate one of these wordings, and another of his companions another wordings, and another of his companions another wording. When we saw that the Prophet had said in one Hadith:

"Ali is your leader and authority after me".

and in another place:

"Ali is every believers authority after me".

These were two separate Hadiths not one Hadith with literal differences. In such circumstances they do not call this a difference because the Prophet himself had spoken two separate time. We know this because in the Hadith itself it states that this remark was made by the prophet in such a place -- the place also specified -- and spoken in such terms; while in another Hadith in another place --- that place also specified there exists another wording that delivers the very same fact or reality. The result is that in two places two phrases were spoken to express one special meaning, and this form of literal difference is not in principle called a "difference".

2) Sometimes a large number of persons heard a Hadith from the Prophet in a certain gathering or meeting. All of them understood its meaning but when they relate, (because they can't remember the exact words used by the Prophet), each of them expresses the understood meaning in the form of certain wards and expressions. We have seen that this is no real difference, and has been called "narration according to meaning in the study of Hadith". So where are the differences and what form do they possess? Real difference is where there is contradiction, the denial of a fact or when something proved is denied. For example when we have one Hadith that states the Prophets said: "Write down my Hadiths" and another one which says he said: "Don't write down my Hadiths". This is a true difference.

However according to Abu Bakrs words, the differences he mentioned did not mean that and really meant literal differences. We say this because if he meant differences as far as contradictions there could be no more than what already existed and future generations could not come along and increase them.

Also, if he meant differences resulting in contradictions and nothing else, then only such Hadith should have been prohibited, not the unconditional prohibition of all Hadiths! And last of all, if no Hadiths - according to Abu Bakrs words -- were to be related, where are they supposed to gain an understanding of Islam? Isn't the explanation and commentary on the Quran supposed to come from the Prophet? Shouldn't the detailed account of the rules of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and Hajj be received from the Prophet? 164 and isn't it true that Islam is in the Quran and life and words of the Prophet and if nothing is narrated from the Prophet, Islam cannot be understood and known? Here the primary aim of the caliph in preventing the narration of Hadith is made clear. But when the Caliph Umar said: "I will not mix Gods' scripture with something else like previous nations did, then forgetting the scriptures".

We ask, wasn't it possible for them to write down the Quran and say: This is the Quran, thus preserving it in a book, and also for them to do the same with the Hadiths? They transcribed Gods scripture, the Quran, and after it was written it was distributed throughout the Islamic world, not one copy but thousands of copies. After this the possibility of it being confused with Hadith had been eliminated. So why was there a prohibition of the recording of Hadith until the year 100 A.H? Why?

The official authorities and Caliphs could have collected the Hadiths of the Prophet in the following manner: After gathering a group of the Prophets close followers who were of the first to embrace Islam, a committee could be formed for the collection of Hadiths, such persons as; Abdullah Ibn Massoud, Abu Dharr, Ammar Ibn Yasir, Khabbab, Bilal, and others like them. Afterwards they would announce to the Prophets companions (99% of them living in Medina), that any of them who had heard a Hadith of the Prophet should come to the committee and relate it. The committee after studying them would record them. In this way a collection of the Prophets Hadiths, thus carefully recorded would take its place in the peoples minds and view, so that opinions regarding the credibility of the Hadiths would be unified just as they did with the Quran. The Quran, which was compiled in this very way has remained in the hands of mankind as thus to this very day there being no form of alteration in it. With this plan the Hadiths could have been collected and would in no way become confused with the Quran. This is the way the books "Sahih" by Muslim or Bukhari have remained the same today as they were the day they were written. So it becomes clear that the real reason for the prohibition was not what they said it to be. Now we will point out two historical documents, narratives which clearly show the real reason for the prohibition of the propagation of these Hadiths:

1) The first narrative is by Abdullah Ibn Amr-e-Ibn Aas. He says: I wrote down everything I heard come out of the Prophets mouth. The men of Quraish prohibited me from doing so, saying: You write down everything you hear the Prophet say. The Prophet is only human and speaks during times of anger and happiness (meaning that the reason the Prophet speaks at these times is because of those feelings not because of some fact or reality. When I heard this I refrained from writing down these words. One day I told the Holy Prophet of this occurance. That Holy Man made a gesture towards his mouth and said: Write, I swear by He who holds my life in the palm of his hand, that nothing but truth comes out of this mouth.

In order to understand this Hadith it is necessary for us to recognize the speakers of the prohibition Abdullahs writing? We know that the Prophets companions in Medina were separated into two groups. The immigrants and the helpers. The immigrants - for the most part - were the Quraishites who had migrated there from Mecca. The helpers were the native Medinans who had come to the Prophets and their immigrant fellows aid, thus receiving the name "Helpers" (Ansars). In terms of lineage and in special historical terminology they gave the name to the Helpers, and the name to the immigrants of Quraish. As such, those who prohibited Abdullah from writing down the Prophets sayings were the Quraish meaning the immigrants. Here it is necessary for us to go into a brief study of the groups in Arabic society in order to clarify this discussion: The groups which fought against Islam during the Prophets lifetime consisted of two large groups: The Jews and The Quraish.

Most of the wars wages against the Prophet were instigated by the Quraish. The battle of Badr took place with one thousand Quraishite warriors. In the battle of Uhud three thousand persons of the inhabitants of Mecca, Quraish and their sworn mercenaries came to battle with the Prophet of Islam. During the battle of Khandaq the leadership was held by the Quraishite warriors and leaders. They were the ones who for several years in the life of the Muslims in Mecca, tortured and tormented them making them homeless in deserts and foreign countries. They were the ones who repeatedly planed to murder the Prophet, at one time coming close to accomplishing it. They broke the teeth and forehead of the Holy Prophet, and killed his honourable uncle. The worst, most rigid enemies of Islam and the Prophet were from this tribe: Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan, Utbah, Aas, etc. These persons and their descendants hid behind a veil of hypocrisy after the victories of Islam. Even though the Jews were a strong group and relentless, clever enemies they lost to the Prophets decisiveness and Islams power, and after the fall of Khaybar they were removed from Arabias political and social scene.

Despite all of this Islam remained, and the Qurasishite enemies a group of whom wished to protect themselves from the sharp eyes of Islam, hid behind a camouflaging veil of hypocrisy without forgetting their enmity with Islam and the Prophet. All of those verses revealed about the hypocrites, warning of their great danger, were revealed about this group and the hypocrites of Medina. Of course the Quraishite hypocrites were more dangerous because they were better hidden and less known of.

Hakam ibn Abil Aas came to Medina and had accepted Islam but sometimes he would walk behind the Prophet and mock his distinctive movements. When the Prophet walked it was as if he was walking down-hill and or as if he were walking in mud. He picked up his feet heavily and his shoulders moved back and forth. Behind him Hakam also made the same movements, making faces and sometimes even sticking out his tongue. After a while, in which he shamelessly repeated these movements the Prophet (s.a.w) turned around and said to him:

"Remain as you are". 165 Hakam was never freed from this curse and until the end of his life remained in that ridiculous form. This man was Hakam the father of Marwan, the fourth Ummayed Caliph and the grandfather of all the Ummayed Caliphs after him, Abdul Malik, Valid etc.

One day the Prophet was sitting in his house. Hakam came along and placed his eye at the keyhole looking inside the room. Ali was also present in the room. The Holy Prophet said: Ali bring him inside. Amir al Mu'meneen quickly went outside and brought Hakam inside by the leg, the same way they drag sheep. The Prophet then said: "May Gods curse be upon him and all of his descendents, except for the faithful among them whom are few".

Abu Sufyan was another of the important men of Quraish. When he was their chief he opposed Islam with all his might and tried to destroy it by any means available. After Mecca was conquered, to all outward appearances he became a Muslim and went to Medina. One day the former Shaikh and chief of Quraish, Abu Sufian, was astride a mule while one of his sons walked before and one of his sons walked behind the mule. When they passed the Prophet he said: God Almighty, curse the rider, the leader and the propeller of this mount. 166 We know that the two sons who accompanied Abu Sufian were Muawieh who later became the governor of Shaam (Syria), and later the ruler over all the Muslims, and the other was Yazid who during the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar became Major General of the army and had a hand in the conquests of the northern part of Arabia. These were two examples. There were also other examples. For example Aas, Amr's father, Muaviehs advisor and governor of Islamic Egypt is one of them. He is included in the group of persons cursed by the Prophet. The Holy Prophet said many similar things which severely stained the reputations of the Quraishites who became leaders after him. Wasn't the correct policy for them to adopt upon coming to power, that of preventing the words of the Prophet from being repeated?!

Isn't it true that Quraish came to power after the Prophet; Muavieh, and Marwan ibn Hakam and persons before and after him and after them becoming Caliph, governor and powerful. It was very easy for them to by any means possible prevent the narration of these types of remarks; which ruined their own and their family members reputations. They even used the excuse of not wishing to confuse the Quran with Hadith when asking the prohibition. The truth and basis of their words was what Abdullah ibn Amr-e-Ibn Aas related from them:

"The Prophet is only human and speaks out of happiness and annoyance"'.

We observed that the second Caliph had commanded the people to only narrate hadiths on matters of religious practice, which was only the beginning. Afterwards, this amount of freedom was taken away from them. He said that they could only narrate Hadiths related to prayer, fasting, Hajj and their like. But Hadiths which for example stated: "Ali is the authority and leader after me"."This Iranian man Salman is a member of our household", "Abu Dharr is similar to Jesus in asceticism", or Hakam, Muavieh and others are such and such, also that which in the Prophets lifetime was said about the remarks of two Caliphs in the battle of Badr, or their escape from the battle of Khaybar or Uthmans fleeing at Uhud, must not be related. The minute freedom the narration of Hadiths quickly gave way to a complete, unconditional prohibition.

Here I will relate to you story which most of you have more or less heard so that we may more accurately understand the reasons and means for the prohibition of the promulgation of Hadiths.

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) was in his death bed. These were the last moments of mankinds contact with the Divine before this connection would be severed and the era of revelation would end. A few of the Prophets companions were gathered at his bedside. The wives of the Prophet, naturally his daughter Fatimah (a.s) among them, were there behind a curtain. The narrator of this occurance is Umar Ibn Khattab who narrates it for Ibn Abbas, saying: We were there with the Prophet. Between us and the women a curtain was drawn. The Messenger of God (s.a.w) began to speak saying: Rinse me with seven skins of water, (in those days cold water was used to bring down some types of fever) after you have done this bring me a piece of paper and some ink so I may write you something with which you will never go astray. [the expression used was which means so you will never go astray. because means 'never'] The Prophets wives said from behind the curtain: Do as the Prophet wishes. I (Umar) said: Be quiet. You are like the women who gathered around Joseph wanting him. If the Prophet is sick you cry and if he regains his health you seize him by the collar wanting your spending money. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said: They are better than you. 167

Jabir narrates as such: At the time of the Prophets death and during his last hours he asked for a piece of paper in order to write his nation a letter, so that they would never go astray nor lead others astray. Those who were around his bed made so much noise and spoke such idle nonsense that the Prophet refrained form doing so. 168

Ibn Abbas said: The Holy Prophet said at the time of his death; Bring me a piece of paper and ink so that I may write something so that afterwards you will never go astray. Umar Ibn Khattab began talking and making a lot of noise saying: All of these cities remain and haven't been conquered, who should conquer them!? Zainab binte Jahsh the Prophet's wife said: Do as the Prophet ordered don't you hear that he wishes to make his last will?! Once again the noise began. It was then that the Prophet said: get up and leave. When they stood and left the room the Holy Prophet passed away. 169

Judging from the differences which exist in these Hadiths and the ones that will be related later, I presume that the Prophet repeated his directions several times each time the opposition group saying something to sabotage it. The Prophet insisted because of the love and avidity he had for his guidance, and they in turn prevented the progress of his speech by creating noise.

I think that the first time the Prophet asked them to bring him paper and ink so that he could write his last will, those around him who knew what he would write, said: No, it's not necessary, we have the Quran and that enough for us. The second time the Prophet repeated his desire they said: Sickness has overcome the Prophet, the Quran is all we need. The third time his orders were repeated they said: This man is talking in delirium. The Quran is enough, for us.

In Bukhari's book "Sahih", there is a Hadith regarding this event from Saeed Ibn Jobair. He quotes from Ibn Abbas who witnessed the occurance. (Ibn Abbas said: "Thursday, what a thursday!" Then he began to cry and he shed so much tears that the pebbles on the ground in front of him were soaked. Then he said that the Prophet's illness gained severity on that day, and he said: Bring me a piece of paper so that I may write you a letter and after this you will never be led astray. Those present differed, one group said: Do as the Prophet commands, while another group said: No, don't bring the paper!)

If in these circumstances someone wished nothing to be done its possible that he would create confusion in some way, bringing up words and remarks that would defeat the original matter at hand, and prevent it being carried out. It was such at that time. (Those around him began to argue even though it wasn't right for them to create such noise and dispute in the Holy Prophets presence). The Holy Quran has told us: Do not speak louder than the Prophet. 170 Ibn Abbas then adds: (the bystanders said: The Prophet speaks in delirium - and the Prophet, just like a kind and sympathetic father who has been confronted by his child's impolite, rebellious, disobedient words said: Leave me alone. This pain and suffering is more agreeable to me than your degrading statements).171

In the Hadith of this same narrator in Muslims books "Sahih" we read such: (Thursday! what a sinister Thursday!? Then tears fell from Ibn Abbas's eyes and I saw them as streams on his cheeks, then he said: Bring me the shoulder-blade bone of a sheep and ink (or a clay slate and ink) so I may write you a writing that will prevent you from ever going astray. They said: The Prophet speaks irrelevantly) 172

Another narrative is related in Bukhari's book "Sahih" in which Ibn Abbas says: [At the time when the Prophet's death was near there were certain men present in his home and room, amongst them Umar Ibn Khattab. The Prophet said: Bring me something so I may write you a letter that will keep you from ever going astray. At this Umar said: The Prophets' illness has prevailed over him and his words are not based on sufficient health and mind we have the Quran, Gods scripture being enough for us]. (Those who were present began to argue and they divided in two groups. One group agreeing with Umar and the other opposing him. The Prophet said: Get up from my side. 173 This noise and dispute in my presence is not allowed).

We see that in the Prophets' presence, in front of him, at the moment he wished to write down his last message, in order to leave as a heritage his last and most important words of guidance for the people, what they said and did. How do you think the Prophet felt at that time and what suffering did his dear ones Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussein endure? At the most sensitive moments of ones life, the time of death and that of a great, learned man, not allowing him to speak or deliver his last will, this brings great grief and suffering. If also the guidance of one nation, the guidance of millions of human beings and even all human beings until eternity is at stake, what then is the enormity of this suffering?

In another place we find these words: When the noise and dispute heightened and the Prophet became upset at their actions he said: "Get up" and in some other narratives Ibn Abbas adds this sentence: The tragedy, the whole tragedy was that they didn't allow the Prophet to write his will". 174

It is completely clear that the great tragedy and suffering o f the Prophets and their executors was not their being killed, because martyrdom in the way of God was their honour. The true tragedy and suffering was when a prophet in his last hours wished to write for his nation his final message; (a message which would be their sure way to salvation and would prevent their possible fundamental differences) and his closest followers didn't allow it and prevented it. Meaning that they obstructed guidance and were a barrier to salvation. We understand the depth of the Prophets' inner suffering when he said: "No Prophet was tormented as they tormented me. Indeed, which prophets' companions treated their prophet in such a way?

Alright, lets see why they didn't allow him? In one narrative, after Umars last remark (This man speaks in delirium) we read: They said to the Holy Prophet: Should we bring the tablet and pen? He answered: After that remark what do you want to bring! What did the Prophet mean by that remark? A person who after years of claiming to follow him stands before him and looking him in the eye says: This man speaks in delirium. This very person, especially if he obtains a group of supporters - which he will later be able to prove that the Prophet wrote this letter when he was "not of sound mind", and that his words in this letter are based on delirium and nothing else! Maybe he would even add something like: - - in such a state the Prophet couldn't write his will. Even if he had written it, he (Umar) would have said: We had said that at that time the Prophet was speaking in delirium. This will is as such based on delirium. Then persons such as Abu Ubaydah Ibn Jarrah, and Amr-e-Aas would also back him up (their good friend) saying: Yes we were witnesses to the fact that the Prophet was not well and his mind was not clear, and in that state the will was written. If remarks made in delirium had been proved regarding the Prophet, his words would have lost their credibility and his prophethood would have been harmed bringing about doubt in the minds of some. Later this would become an unabolishable point of disgrace in Islams' pure being. They certainly would have every means to prove their point and further their aim.

Now we will return to our original discussion.

Did Umar and his friends prevent the Prophet from writing his will because they were afraid the Prophets will would be confused or mixed with the Quran? Was it for this reason they told Abdullah the son of Amr-e-Aas not to write down the Prophets words? Or is the matter something else and the reason elsewise. We see that it is clearly proved that they were afraid some remark would remain from the Prophet which would become a barrier to their own interests and desires, and destroy the hopes and aims they had nurtured for many long years.

This powerful group prevented the recording of the Prophets words during his lifetime, and after the Prophet they tried to prevent the words memorized by his companions from being recorded and related. Weren't those who gained the governorship and leadership after the Prophet all from Quraish, and all of the Immigrants (Muhajerin)? Weren't the Prophets words in reproach of and damnation for them and their descendants?

Up until now our discussion has been on the first means of alteration which was the prohibition of the narration of the Prophets Hadith; preventing his words from reaching the people outside of Medina and the new Muslims, those who had not seen the Prophet in person. This was so that the Caliphates administration could train them in thought just as they themselves wished, and raise them as they so desired.

History Confirms Our Opinions.

In order to better clarify the events we narrated we will once again return to history.

During the Prophets dying moments, Abu Bakr was in his own home (which was on the outskirts of Medina in 'Sunh'. 175

Historians, writers of Hadiths, and geographical experts all agree that Sunh, the location of Abu Bakr's home, was outside the city of Medina. Even upon gaining the leadership he remained there for some time, sometimes coming mounted to lead the communal prayers and sometimes not coming at all, when Umar prayed in his place. 176 As such, Abu Bakr was not in Medina at the time of the Prophets death. The events that led to him leaving for home were as such: Abu Bakr led the morning prayers without the Prophets permission. When the Prophet heard his voice he opened his eyes and lifted his head from Ali's lap saying: Pick me up. Ali took him under one arm and Fadhl Ibn Abbas took him under the other and they brought him to the mosque. The Prophet was so ill and in so much pain that he couldn't put his feet on the ground. According to Bukhari in his book "Sahih". 177 The Prophets legs were like two sticks being pulled on the ground and as such drew lines in the dirt. In this condition he went towards the "Mehrab" (pulpit), pushed Abu Bakr aside thus interrupting the prayer, then he himself beginning the prayer........

Abu Bakr was thus confronted with defeat, and so he wouldn't be completely broken and totally set aside from the scene, after prayers he went to the Prophet saying: Allow me to go home! The Prophet possessing modesty and decency gave him permission without saying anything else to him and he left for Sunh. Therefore all of the events before and simultaneous with the Prophets death occured without the presence of Abu Bakr. The political directors on the scene however felt danger and were afraid that an oath of allegiance would be pledged without Abu Bakr being there, and so to say the god of the governorship and leadership of the nation would inevitably slip from their hands. Because of this they acted out another plan. Umar began screaming: The Prophet has not died. Like Moses he has gone to his lord - Moses disappeared from among his people for forty days and after forty days he returned, but the people had said he had died - I swear to God that the Prophet will return just as Moses returned and he will cut off the arms and legs of those who thought him dead. 178 And in another narration; I will cut off the head of any one who says he is dead with this sword. These actions, which were performed with great energy and vigor, surprised everyone and made them hesitate, some asking him: Has the Prophet spoken to you about this or made a special testimony to you on the matter of his death? After which he gave a negative reply.

Umar screamed and threatened so much that his mouth foamed. 179 In the middle of all this, Salem, Abu Huzaifehs freed slave, one of his close aids and one of those loyal to his party (cause) went to Sunh to bring Abu Bakr. The raving and threats continue until Abu Bakr enters the center of the crowd. When Umar saw Abu Bakr his shouting and clamour was forgotten and he sat down. 180 During that time one of the Prophets companions had recited Quranic verses for him which proved the Prophets' death; but he had not listened, and payed no attention. Amr-e-Ibn Ghais Ibn Zardeh read this for him:

'---Arabic text---'

181 and others mentioned other reasons but it had no effect on him. Just seeing Abu Bakr and hearing his speech (even though he only repeated those very verses) pacified Umar.

Historians have given various explanations for this occurance. Some say: Because of Umars great affection and love for the Prophet he couldn't believe his death. Some said: He had lost control of his senses because of the severity of the tragedy and thus his actions on that day were not based on a sound state of mind. But we think that the great scholar Ibn Abi al-Hadids opinion is correct when he said:

[When Umar heard of the Prophets death he feared the peoples revolt and uprising on the matter of the Imamate. He was afraid that the Ansar (helpers) or some others would take over the leadership and government. Consequently he saw it expedient to keep the people quiet in any way possible, and for this reason he said what he said and caused the people to hesitate and doubt so that the religion and government remained intact. All of this went on until Abu Bakr arrived.]

As such we see that the party was at work and was striving to gain control of the events taking place. Preventing the Prophet from writing his last testimony in the final moments of his life was only for fear of the written, decisive appointment of the next leader. After his death they also took control of events so that this appointment could not be made by oath of allegiance.......

Here, although it does not deal with the particular incident at hand the narration of this historical point is necessary in our discussion We may read in Tabaris book "Tarikh" and in other creditable records; When Abu Bakr was at his dying hour he called for Uthman. No one else was present. Abu Bakr said; Write this down:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This is what Abu Bakr testifies as his last will to the Muslims......

saying this he fained. Uthman continued writing:

I have appointed Umar Ibn al-Khattab as my successor and in doing so had your best interest in mind.

At this moment Abu Bakr came to and said to Uthman:

Read to me what you have written.

Uthman read the will to him: Abu Bakr said:

"Allahu Akbar"

and then added:

I think you feared if I died in this state of unconsciousness the people would end up in dispute?

Uthman said:

Yes!

Abu Bakr then said:

'---Arabic text---'

and then signed Uthmans' writing.

Afterwards they took the will to the mosque. Umar was sitting among the people and with a stick in his hand he says:

O' People, listen to and obey the words of the Holy Prophets' (s.a.w) Caliph, he says: I have done all I could in your best interests!

Pay attention here that Umar does not say Abu Bakr was talking in delirium and doesn't think that pain has overtaken him, and does not take refuge in Gods scripture. Those were all peculiar to the Prophets last testimony. We ask you, was the matter as simple as it appeared or did they by any possible means wish to prevent the Prophet from writing his will? Was the real reason for the prohibition of narrating Hadiths fear that they would become confused with the Quran. Or did they fear that the pure and good men among the companions would be clarified, who were not of their group and party - or that the insurgents and hypocrites would be revealed.

Haven't we read in the Quran:

"There are some people in Medina who are so experienced at hypocrisy that you don't recognize them, We recognize them. You as a human being even with all of your greatness, intelligence and insight can not distinguish them from the others who are faithful, we must inform you of their existence in revelation".

According to explicit Quranic verses these persons existed in Medina among the Muslims and were so mysterious and sly that the only way to recognize them was to rely on divine revelation and the words of the Prophet. Because of this the words of the Prophet must not be related so that in their midst curtains would be drawn and a group discovered. In this way we have come to understand the reasons for the occurance in Abdullah Ibn Amr-e-Aas's Hadith and the events subsequent to the Prophets death. We have also arrived at the reasons for the prohibition of the narration and recording of Hadith. We have discovered the mysteries and secrets surrounding this important event.

Up to this point we have studied the first means for the alteration, change and concealment of Islamic truths which was the prohibition of the relating and writing of the Prophets Hadiths; and we have judged it within the limits of these short discussions. For one hundred years Hadiths were not written, and they trained the Muslims just as they wished. In other words, the ruling administration took hold of the peoples religious, political and social limits and rules and in all of these subjects gave the people their own way of thought, controlling them as such. They gained this power when the Prophets Hadith, the second pillar of Islam, was eliminated from the social scene and lifestyle for the Muslim community. Only that which caused no harm to the ruling administration and did not oppose the governments political policies was propagated.