PROPHET'S ORDER TO OBEY ALI

"And whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back." (59:7)

Therefore, we must obey the command of the Holy Prophet.

When we look to the instructions of the Holy Prophet we find (as is recorded in your reliable books) that among the whole of his community the Holy Prophet has called only Ali his gate of knowledge and has ordered us to obey him. In fact, he said that obedience to Ali was the same as obedience to him.

Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Imamu'l-Haram in Dhakha'iru'l-'Uquba; Khawarizmi in Manaqib; Sulayman Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda; Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib and other ulema have reported that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "Ansars! Shall I show you the person to whom you should adhere and who will never lead you astray?" The people said: "Yes, let us know him." The Holy Prophet said: "He is Ali. Be his friend, respect him, and follow him. Verily, he is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with him. Surely he will lead you to the right path and will not let you be ruined. Whatever I have told you has been told to me by Gabriel."

Also, as recorded by your ulema, the Holy Prophet said to Ammar-e-Yasir: "If all of mankind is on one side, and Ali on the other, you should adopt the way of Ali and leave the others."

Also, on different occasions and in different places, the Holy Prophet repeatedly said: "He who obeys Ali, really obeys me. He who obeys me, really obeys Allah."

NO HADITH EXISTS DESIGNATING OTHER CALIPHS AS THE "GUIDES OF THE COMMUNITY" OR "GATES OF KNOWLEDGE"

There is not a single hadith in your books in which the Holy Prophet says: "After me the guide to the right path, or 'my gate of knowledge' or 'my successor and caliph' is Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman." Can you cite such a hadith which is not fabricated by the Bakari or Amawi groups?

But you ask us to give the fourth place to the Holy Prophet's "Gate of knowledge," the Holy Prophet's "successor and caliph," to quote the Holy Prophet's own words, and follow those about whom there are no instructions whatsoever. If we follow your advice, shall we not be disobeying Allah and His Holy Prophet?

SUNNI ULEMA DO NOT WANT COOPERATION WITH US

Fourth, you say that like the four schools of law (Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and Shafi'is), we should also be united with you. But you people call the Shias Rafizis, polytheists, and infidels. Obviously, polytheists and believers cannot be united. We are, however fully prepared to cooperate with our Sunni brothers. Of course the condition is that you and we should be equally free to advocate our religious beliefs.

Just as followers of the four schools of law are free in their actions, the followers of the progeny of the Holy Prophet should also be free in their actions. We see that among your four schools of law there are such serious differences that some of them call the others infidels and sinners. Yet you consider them Muslims and allow them freedom of actions. But, calling the poor Shias polytheists and infidels, you turn them out of the Muslim fold and deprive them of their freedom to practice their religion. How can we hope for unity and cooperation?

PROSTRATION ON DUST BY SHIA'S OBJECTED TO BY OTHERS WITHOUT REASON

Take the example of our prostration on dust. What a fuss you make about the dust and turba, a small block of clay of the holy land of Karbala, on which we put our forehead while prostrating! You insist that it is an idol and call us idol worshipers, though we prostrate on the dust with permission of Allah and His Holy Prophet. The Qur'anic verses enjoin us to perform prostration, and prostration means to put the forehead on the ground. Of course there is a difference of opinion between you and us as to the things on which we prostrate.

Sheikh: Then why do you not perform the prostration as all other Muslims do so that there may be no difference and this misunderstanding may disappear.

Well-Wisher: First, please let us know why you Shafi'is differ so much with the Malikis and Hanbalis, regarding both the articles of practice and the fundamentals of your belief. Sometimes they go so far as to call each other "sinner" and "infidel." It would be better if all of them sat together and develop a common belief, so that there may be no difference.

Sheikh: There is a difference of opinion among the jurists, but whoever among us follows any of the jurists - Imam Shafi'i, Imam A'zam, Imam Malik, or Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal - will be rewarded by Allah.

DIFFERENCES AMONG THE FOUR SCHOOLS ARE IGNORED BUT SHIAS' ARE NOT TOLERATED

Well-Wisher: For Allah's sake be fair. You have no reason to follow the four jurists except that some of them were learned men. You blindly follow them. Your are led by the nose, and still you claim that your actions will be rewarded even though there are differences in fundamentals as well as in articles of practice among them. We follow the orders of the family of the Holy Prophet, who were, according to the Prophet himself and to your own eminent ulema, most learned and you say we are infidels. You should admit that these hostilities are not due to differences in views. Their cause is that we love the family of the Prophet, and our opponents nurse a grudge against them.

So far as the differences in fundamentals and articles of practice are concerned there are many - among your four schools. Most of the verdicts of your Imams and jurists are contrary to the clear injunctions contained in the Holy Qur'an. But you never utter a word against those who pronounce such verdicts and those who act upon them. Yet when the Shias prostrate on pure dust, according to the ordinance of the Holy Qur'an, you call them infidels!

VERDICTS BY SUNNI SCHOLARS IN CONTRADICTION TO QUR'ANIC INJUNCTIONS

Sheikh: Where have the Sunni scholars of jurisprudence and the four imams given verdicts in contradiction to the Holy Qur'an?

Well-Wisher: They have often given orders in contradiction to ordinances of the Holy Qur'an and against the unanimous view of the community. Your own ulema have written a number of books on the differences among the four schools of law. I advise you to read the illustrious book Masa'ilu'l-Khalif fi'l-fiqh by Sheikhu't-Ta'ifa Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali Tusi, who has recorded all the differences of the jurists of Islam from the chapter Tahira (Cleanliness) to the chapter on Diyat (reprisals).

I will point out one of many examples of legal injunctions passed in contradiction to the Holy Qur'an.

Sheikh: Yes, give us an example of this.

IN ABSENCE OF WATER GHUSL AND WUZU' ONE SHOULD PERFORM TAYAMMUM

You gentlemen are aware that ceremonial washing is an essential ritual of Islam. Depending on circumstances, one washes the entire body (ghusl) or part of it (wuzu').

"When you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and hands as far as the elbows." (5:6)

Accordingly, we should perform the ablution with pure water. When we do not have water, we should perform tayammum, according to the verse: "And (if) you find not water then betake yourself to (pure) earth and wipe your faces and your hands." (4:43)

We should perform tayammum with pure earth. In the first case water for ablution is necessary. In the second case, water is not available, or if there is some other extenuating circumstance then, whether we are on a journey or at home, we should perform tayammum, wiping the hands and face with pure dust, in place of wuzu'. On this point all jurists of Islam are unanimous, whether they are Shia Ithna Asharis, Malikis, Shafi'is or Hanbalis.

ABU HANIFA'S VERDICT THAT IF WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE WE CAN PERFORM GHUSL AND WUZU' WITH NABIZ (SYRUP OF DATE)

But your greatest Imam, Abu Hanifa (most of whose verdicts are based on speculation) insists that while we are on a journey and if we cannot find water, we should perform ghusl and wuzu' with nabiz (date syrup). But everybody knows that nabiz is the juice of dates and it is not lawful to perform ablution with adulterated water.

The Holy Qur'an ordains that it is necessary for us to perform the ablution for ritual prayer with pure water. If water is not available, we should perform tayammum. Imam A'zam Abu Hanifa says that we may perform ghusl or wuzu' using nabiz. This is a clear violation of the Qur'anic ordinance. On the other hand, Bukhari in his Sahih has written "It is not lawful to perform ablution with nabiz or an intoxicant."

Hafiz: I follow the Shafi'i school of law and fully agree with you on this point. If there is no water, we should perform tayammum, and it is not permissible to perform ablution with nabiz. This verdict has been ascribed to Imam Abu Hanifa on the basis of its general popularity.

Well-Wisher: Knowing the real fact you make this excuse. This verdict of Abu Hanifa has been consecutively narrated. I quote Fakhru'd-din Razi, who says in his commentary Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol. III, p.553, regarding the verse of tayammum, problem V, Shafi'i says that "Wuzu' using Nabiz (date juice) is not lawful, and Abu Hanifa says that it is lawful while one is on a journey." Also Ibn Rushd has recorded this verdict of Abu Hanifa in his book Hidayatu'l-Mujtahid.

Sheikh: How can you say that this verdict is contrary to the ordinance of the Qur'an? Some Hadith clearly prove it from the action of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Can you cite any hadith supporting your point?

Sheikh: In a hadith which Abu Zaid, slave of Amr Bin Harith, reports from Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, the Holy Prophet said to him, on the night of the jinns (Lailatu'j-Jinn - the night when the Prophet took the oath of allegiance from the jinns-tr.): "Do you have some water?" He (Abu Zaid) said: "No, there is only a little nabiz." The Holy Prophet said: "The date is clean, and water is also clean." Saying this he performed the ablution.

There is another hadith which Abbas Bin Walid Bin Sabihu'l-Halal Damishqi reported from Marwan Bin Muhammad Tahiri Damishqi who reported it from Abdullah Bin Lahi'a, who reported it from Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, who said: "The Holy Prophet said to me on Lailatu'j-Jinn: "Do you have water with you?" I said: "No, but there is nabiz in the pail." Then the Holy Prophet said: "The date is clean, and the water is clean. Pour it on me." So I poured it on him, and he performed the ablution with it."

Obviously, the action of the Holy Prophet is an example for us to follow. No doctrine or argument is superior to his actions. It is for that reason that our Imam-e-A'zam has approved its lawfulness.

Well-Wisher: Perhaps it would have been better, if you had remained silent. Now our Sunni brothers will know that their leaders were mistaken. They passed verdicts only on the basis of speculation.

First of all, let us examine who the narrators of this hadith were.

First, Abu Zaid, slave of Amr Bin Harith, is not a known figure, and according to the traditionists, he is a rejected man as reported by Tirmidhi and others. Dhahabi in his Mizanu'l-I'tidal says: "This man is not known to us and this hadith, which is narrated from Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, is not correct." Hakim says: "No other hadith is narrated by this unknown man."

Bukhari also designated him as an unreliable narrator of hadith. For this reason distinguished ulema, like Qastalani and Sheikh Zakariyya Ansari, wrote in their commentaries on Sahih Bukhari that "wuzu' (ritual ablution) is not lawful with nabiz or intoxicants." They point out that the hadith referred to above is weak.

The second hadith is also unacceptable. First, no scholar, except Ibn Maja, narrated it in this way.

Second, prominent ulema have not included it in their sunan because the chain of its reporters is faulty.

Dhahabi in his Mizanu'l-I'tiqad has quoted a number of statements showing that Abbas Bin Walid is not reliable. Hence, critics and commentators have rejected him altogether. As for Marwan Bin Muhammad Tahiri, he belonged to the misguided group of Marhaba. Ibn Hazm and Dhahabi have proved that he was an unreliable narrator of hadith.

Similarly, Abdullah Bin Lahi'a has also been discredited by distinguished ulema and commentators.

Therefore, when the chain of narrators of a hadith is of such a dubious nature that your own ulema reject it, the hadith loses its value.

Third, on the basis of a hadith, which your ulema have narrated from Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, there was no one with the Holy Prophet on Lailatu'j-Jinn. Abu Dawud in his Sunan, chapter on Wuzu' and Tirmidhi in his Sahih, report from Al-Qama that Abdullah Bin Mas'ud was asked: "Who among you was with the Holy Prophet on Lailatu'j-Jinn?" He said: "No one from among us was with him."

Fourth, Lailatu'j-Jinn occurred in Mecca prior to the Hijra (migration), while all the commentators say that the verse of tayammum was revealed in Medina. So this ordinance certainly annuls the previous order. It was for this reason that your great jurists, like Imam Shafi'i, Imam Malik, and others have declared it unlawful.

It is strange that the Sheikh puts forward a weak hadith as authoritative in the face of the Holy Qur'an and tries to prove Abu Hanifa's pronouncement correct.

WASHING OF THE FEET IN WUZU' IS AGAINST THE QUR'ANIC ORDINANCE

Apart from the accepted rules of wuzu' mentioned in the above verse, after washing the face and hands, a part of the head and the feet up to the ankles are to be wiped. The holy verse clearly says: "And wipe a part of your heads and a part of your feet up to the ankles." But all your scholars of jurisprudence insist that the feet be washed, contradicting the clear ordinance of the Qur'an. There is a difference between washing and wiping.

Sheikh: There are a number of hadith which indicate that the feet are to be washed.

Well-Wisher: First, only hadith which conform with Qur'anic ordinances are acceptable.

Obviously, the revoking of an explicit Qur'anic verse by a lone report can never be lawful. The holy verse clearly enjoins the wiping, not washing, of the feet. If you think a little more carefully you will find that the whole verse leads to the same point. It begins with the order "Wash your face and your hands." The conjunction "and" denotes that after washing the face, we should also wash the hands. Similarly, in the second order: "and wipe a part of your head and a part of your feet", the wiping of the head and of the feet are joined by the conjunction "and." This clearly shows that after wiping of the head the feet must also be wiped. It goes without saying that washing cannot be substituted by wiping. So just as the washing of the face and hands is necessary, the wiping of the head and feet is also necessary. It is inadmissible that one be wiped and the other washed. Otherwise, the conjunction and would be meaningless.

Moreover, apart from these clear meanings, Islamic law does not contain harsh and austere orders. Washing the feet is more difficult than wiping them. The religious order is intended to make the performance of wuzu' easy, as the tone of the verse also suggests.

Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, an eminent Sunni commentator, makes a detailed argument concerning the compulsory nature of wiping the feet in wuzu'. You would benefit from studying it.

WIPING OVER THE SOCKS AGAINST THE EXPLICIT ORDINANCE OF THE HOLY QUR'AN

Even more strange than washing the feet is the wiping over stockings. There are differences among the Sunni jurists whether it may be done while on a journey or at home.

This order is contrary to the Qur'anic injunction which stipulates that we are to wipe the feet and not the socks. This order is also opposed to the former order of washing the feet. If wiping the feet is not lawful, why have they made wiping over the socks lawful?

Sheikh: There are many hadith which show that the Prophet wiped the socks. Accordingly, the jurists considered it as proof of the lawfulness of this act.

Well-Wisher: I have repeatedly submitted that, according to the order of the Prophet a hadith alleged to have been reported from him which does not conform to the Holy Qur'an is to be rejected. The forgers and political jugglers have fabricated many hadith. Accordingly, your own prominent ulema have rejected such hadith.

Besides the fact that these hadith are incompatible with the clear ordinance of the Holy Qur'an, they are also mutually contradictory. Your own great ulema have accepted this fact. For instance, the great sage, Ibn Rushd Andalusi, in his Badayatu'l-Mujtahid wa Nihayatu'l-Muqtasid, vol. I, pp.15 and 16, says about this difference: "The reason that they differ is that the reports about them are opposed to each other." In another place he says: "The reason that they differ is that the reports about them are inconsistent."

Hence, to base an argument on reports and hadith which are mutually contradictory and also clearly opposed to Qur'anic injunctions is quite absurd. You know that among the hadith which are contradictory to each other, only those which are compatible with the Holy Qur'an are acceptable. If any hadith is opposed to the Holy Qur'an it is to be rejected outright.