for rightfulness and truthfulness. This was enough to drive the sayer out of the sphere of Islam. He defamed the Prophet (s) just like what Mo'awiya had done before. Sa'eed bin al-Mussayab, who was famous of his deviation from Ali, was present. He felt sleepy for a moment when Kahlid said his saying. He opened his eyes and he was terrified. He asked: "Woe unto you! What did this malicious say? I saw the tomb split and the Prophet said: "You are lying, o you the enemy of Allah!"
(1)
With these ignominious deeds and with this obscene style, which was far away from morals and humanity, they resisted the rightness, which they saw that it would prevent them from achieving their mean pleasures and would prevent them from the seats of the rule but definitely they would hold the seats of Hell!
History is full of such shameful deeds and if one wants to track the, he will be tried. But it is painful when you find that the leaders of the umma, who were called amirul mo'mineen
(2) or the caliphs of the Prophet sometimes, were either freed captives, hypocrites, stealers, adulteres, drunkard, deviator or dissolute...to the end of this empty circle of the corruption og those mean walis.
Mo'awiya the feed captive was amirul mo'mineen, Yazeed the drunkard was the caliph of the Prophet, Marwan the deviant and the son of the deviant was the caliph of the Muslims...until the turn of the tyrant Abdul Melik, Yazeed the deficient and Marwan the donkey.
Then we come back to find that these false sayings, fabricated traditions, distorted speeches and biases interpretations come out from lips saying: (We heard the messenger of Allah saying...).
We searched for those of that falseness and fabrication and what a painful thing it was! We found that it was
____________
1 A'yan ash-Shia, vol.35 p.78 and the Thesis of aj-Jahidh p.15
2 The commander of the believers.
(36)
them, who were called the Prophet's companions. This companionship was considered as an impregnable fence surrounding this falseness and guarding that fabrication and a a protector covering those bad deeds and denied doings!
Whoever tried to cross this fence or to remove that cover would be accused of trespassing the rightness, talking about the Prophet's companions with what was impermissible, being envious trying to deny their right of sacred companionship, whereas the truth was that those people had lowered themselves to the level of the stupid beats and they demolished with their own hands that high structure, destroyed with their picks the fence, which was constructed to protect them and tore with their fingers those ragged covers, behind which they had committed crimes and treasons away from the eyes thinking that the eyes were sleepy and inattentive.
They did whatever they could and received in return for their doings their fees from the wealth of the Muslims and the umma. Didn't they know that their graves would be set to fire, their foreheads and sides would be branded and their skins would be changed into others after being burnt?
They got that money, which was scattered by the rulers, who didn't care but for their thrones. In order to save their thrones, they used every means and spent every thing indifferently without paying any attention except to the results whatever the means was as long as the purpose would justify the means. But in spite of all that, they were considered as the leaders of the Muslims and the caliphs of the Prophet (s)!
In this way they brought the umma to the abyss of deviation, finishing off the live conscience, mocking at the justice, opposing the rightness, devouring what was forbidden listening to lying and caring for nothing but their selfishness and greed. This one told lies, fabricated and distorted just to take in return for his (business)
(37)
stolen gold or extorted silver as shameful bribes and that one paid openhandedly and it was not but a mean bait in order to control the rule and to humiliate the umma with all kinds of torture, disgrace and punishment.
Between this and that there were shed bloods, extorted rights, violated dignities, spread injustice, open sins and extreme poverty. All that was an inevitable result of that unjust dark age.
They passed away after they had foisted into the religion what they liked and ravaged and corrupted according to their mean fancies, obscene desires and beastly greed.
They passed away but the people, who came after them, accepted what was left and considered it as true but if they pondered a little and used their minds to search for the truth, they would discover the defects and the disadvantages of those ones, which might not trouble the clearness of thw sphere and might not blacken the bright face of the religion.
They passed away after soiling the face of life and blackening the history. They passed away to be succeeded with others, who complicated the situation and added to the sins what firmed their structure. Among those successors were some, who weren't satisfied with that falsehood but they exceeded in error and fabrication for there was no deterrent of religion, no watch of conscience, no restrainer from violating the rightness and no fear from punishment.
I expected to find much many lies and fabrications against Imam Ali (s) since the age of Mo'awiya and throughout the ages of the kings of the cursed tree (the Umayyads) as it was called by the Quran and the fabrications created by the mercenaries and those, who followed the Umayyads or held the same Umayyad tendency but I did never expect that as-Sayooti might tell of such a fabrication when he talked about the reason of the revelation of the following Quranic verse: (O you who
(38)
believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say) 4:43.
He mentioned this fabricated lie and he doubled his error by ascribing it to Imam Ali himself. He pretended that Imam Ali, Allah forbid, had said: "One day Abdur Rahman bin Ouff invited us. He served us some food and then he served us some wine. The wine affected our minds. When the time of the prayer came, they advanced me to lead them in offering the prayer. I recited (the sura wrongly): (Say: O unbelievers! I do not worship that which you worship and we worship what you worship) then Allah revealed: (O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say)"
(1)
We don't want to argue with as-Sayooti about the source of the tradition he mentioned or about the fabrication itself, which had contradiction in the different ways of the narration or about distorting the name of that who offered the prayer and inserting the name of Imam Ali in this shameful way in spite of that some of those, who mentioned the tradition, ignored the name and didn't mention Ali and some others mentioned names of other companions...
We don't want to argue about this fabrication in any way but we just want to refer to its apparent collapse and contradiction to the clear Quranic verses and prophetic traditions talking about Imam Ali.
Drinking wine was contradictory to the verse of purification (Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. Quran 33:33) which there was no any doubt or suspicion that Imam Ali was included in, in fact he was the first, to whom the verse was applied. Drinking wine was also contradictory to the verse of supplication (say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our
____________
1 Refer to Asbab an-Nuzool (by As-Sayooti) p.63.
(39)
selves and your selves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars. Quran 3:61) that made Imam Ali as the same as the Prophet himself.
On the other hand it contradicted the certain facts of Imam Ali's conduct, which no two would disagree upon. He had never been a polytheist since he had come out to existence so how would it be possible that he distorted the verse by reciting (We worship what you worship) whereas it addressed the unbelievers?
We don't have to discuss such a shameful collapse with more than to point to it remotely because if we want to track and detail, it won't be possible to get to the aim through this book.
But we have to point out that someone mentioned the reason of the revelation of this verse and mentioned a person, who had offered the prayer with the drunken people but someone (!) came to hide the name of that great companion to insert instead of him the name of Ali without fearing the end of fabricating lies and without caring about what would harm the Prophet when it harmed Imam Ali because they were but one self according to the Quranic verse.
Some of the interpreters said, when interpreting the verse, that the intoxication referred to by the verse was not the intoxication of wine but the intoxication of sleepiness.
(1)
We track something of what these bad successors of those bad ancestors created to widen the abyss of separation and alienation among the Muslims. Their fabricated lies weren't based upon any bit of truthfulness, rightfulness or good will.
We track what they wrote unthinkingly to be astonished at al-Ghazali when he answered someone asking him about cursing Yazeed.
____________
1 Majma'ul Bayan, vol.5 p.112 and al-Kashshaf, vol.1 p.397.
(40)
The asker said: "Is he, who curses Yazeed openly, to be considered as a transgressor against the religion? Is it permissible to pray to Allah to have mercy upon him (Yazeed)?"
Al-Ghazali answered: "Whatever curses him will be transgressor and disobedient because cursing a Muslim, even cursing the animals, is impermissible. It was mentioned that the Prophet (s) had forbidden that. The sanctity of the Muslim is greater than the sanctity of the Kaaba according to the saying of the Prophet (s). Yazeed was a good Muslim and his order of killing al-Husayn or his contentment about it was not true. As long as that was certain so it was impermissible to suspect him of it. Mistrusting a Muslim is haram. If the truth was not well-known, trusting the Muslim would be obligatory, besides that killing was not unbelieving but it was disobeying. Praying Allah to have mercy upon him was permissible and it was desirable because he was one of the believers according to our saying in the prayer: O Allah, forgive the believing men and the believing women!"
(1)
Do you see the contradiction and the fraud behind it? Distrusting the Muslim was haram, killing al-Husayn was not unbelieving and the sanctity of the Muslim was greater than the sanctity of the Kaaba according to the Prophet's saying! Cursing Yazeed was haram but al-Husayn had no sanctity, there was no respect to his blood and no value of what the Prophet (s) had said about him! Killing al-Husayn would not affect the dignity of Yazeed' the caliph of the Prophet and amirul mo'mineen! It didn't harm his faith! He was included in the saying of the prayer: (O Allah, forgive the believing men and the believing women)!
How odd saying and what a trespass against the truth it was! How warmly al-Ghazali believed in the faith of
____________
1 As-Seera al-Halabiyya, vol.1 p.195
(41)
Yazeed and how zealously he defended Yazeed, the drunkard, the dissolute, the reveler, the reckless, the shameless...!
But killing al-Husayn (s) by Yazeed was the first motive of the disgraceful situation of al-Ghazali, who defended Yazeed so defiantly.
It seemed that al-Ghazali had many situations towards defending the imamate of Yazeed bin Mo'awiya. He repeated his situations according to the need or with no need. He said in another situation: "If it is said: Is it permissible to curse Yazeed because he killed al-Husayn or he ordered of killing him and the same was about cursing him because it was impermissible to ascribe a grave sin to a Muslim without inquiry."
(1)
Again he uncovered what was hidden in his conscience. He wasn't satisfied with defending Yazeed by denying the true evidence, which no one would deny unless he was a reluctant sticker or an idiotic ignorant. Considering Yazeed as innocent of killing al-Husayn was not enough for him because he knew well how much misleading he committed as if he denied that the one was the half of the two.
He came back from another way to defend all of the killers of al-Husayn even if he thought that Yazeed was one of them. He said: "If it is said: Is it permissible to say: Allah may damn the killer of al-Husayn or Allah may damn him, who ordered of killing al-Husayn? We say: It is better to say: Allah may damn the killer of al-Husayn if he died before he repented because he might
____________
1 Ihya'ul Oloom, vol.3 p.121. Al-Ghazali had another opinion contradicting his previous one showing that he recovered his senses. It was mentioned in Sirrul Aalameen p.10. It seemed that his situation changed according to the motive of writing this book or that.
(42)
have died after repenting."
(1)
He discussed the repenting of Wahshi
(2) as an evidence of impressibility of damning in spite of that Wahshi had never got rid of his beastliness
(3) for a day and he had ended his life with the wine until it overcome him completely that he couldn't sober up.
(4)
But al-Ghazali in this situation tried his best in order that no curse would reach an unbeliever and a transgressor like Wahshi, Yazeed and their likes. This man, who strove to defend Yazeed and Wahshi and in fact he defended their chief Iblis, curse be upon him, when he said: "It doesn't matter in not damning Iblis besides other than him".
(5) This man with all these disgraceful situations, with which he didn't want even Iblis and his grandsons to be cursed, didn't feel shy when he said his second calamity: "Cursing has more special from like saying" Curse of Allah may be upon the Jews, the Christians, the magi, the fatalists, the kharijites, the Shia, the adulteres, the unjust and the usurers. All of that is permissible."
(6)
One might think that there was much contradiction between that two situations because here he permitted cursing all these groups while there he defended Yazeed and his band of killers of al-Husayn after he thought that it didn't matter not to curse their master Iblis! But with a little deliberation we find that there is no contradiction. In fact there is a firm connection between the two situations. His permission of cursing the Shia united with
____________
1 Ihya'ul Oloom, vol.3 p.122.
2 Wahshi was the one,, who assassinated Hamza, the Prophet's uncle, in the battle of Uhod. He was instigated by Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan and the mother of Mo'awiya.
3 Wahshi in Arabic means: beastly.
4 Al-Istee'ab, vol.3 p.61.
5 Ihya'ul Oloom, vol.3 p.121.
6 Ibid p.120
(43)
hid defending Yazeed at the same purpose and aim. Both were the invitable result and the bitter fruit of the seed of the grudge against the pure family of the Prophet (s).
We weren't surprised when he put the Shia, the followers of the Prophet's family, in one row with the fatalists and the Kharijites and permitted cursing the all because, according to his thought, the all were apostates and no good would be expected from them and on repentance would be accepted from them.
In fact if he declared his inner dregs, he would prefer all the deviated and illegal sects and groups to the Shia just because they were the followers of Ali and his sons and this was unforgivable crime and unwashable dirt!
There was a great difference between the situation of al-Ghazali in defending the low Yazeed when he killed al-Husayn and the situation of aj-Jahidh about this very point. It would be better to quote something of what aj-Jahidh had said about the subject. The following passage came after the passage we quoted before, in which aj-jahidh had talked about the lie of the year of the unity (aam aj-jama'a). He said: "... then what was committed by Yazeed and his governors and followers, then the invasion against Mecca, hitting the Kaaba by mangonels, violating Medina and killing al-Husayn (s) and most of his family, who were the lamps of darkness and the pillars of Islam, after al-Huysayn promised them to separate his followers and to go back to his country or to another place but they wanted either to kill him or that he was to submit to their rule."
(1)
Then he discussed some doings done by Yazeed that proved his unbelieving until he said: "... then see his poetry, which was full of polytheism and unfaithfulness. And what about striking the front teeth of al-Husayn (s) with the bar, carrying the daughters of the messenger of
____________
1 The thesis of aj-Jahidh p.294.
(44)
Allah (s) bareheaded on intractable camels, uncovering the private parts of Ali bin al-Husayn when they hesitated about his adulteres; whether he had pubes or not in order to be killed or to be carried with the captives as the commander of the Islamic army did with the captives of the polytheists. And what do you say about the saying of Obeidillah bin Ziyad to his companions: "Let me kill him because he is the reminder of this progeny (the Hashemites progeny) to end this age, to get rid of this obstacle and to cut off this genealogy?
Would you tell us what all that severity and rudeness did mean after they had quenched their thirst by killing them (al-Husayn, most of his family and his companions) and achieved what they liked? Did that show enmity, bad thinking, grudge, hatred, polytheism, abnormality and unbelieving or show faith and love to the Prophet (s), obedience and true-heartedness? If he (Yazeed) was as we described, he would be deviant and unfaithful. This is the simplest thing to be said about him. The unbeliever is to be damned and he, who forbids cursing the damned, is to be damned."
(1)
We don't think that we need to comment on the saying of aj-Jahidh. It has a good answer to confute the disgraceful situation of al-Ghazali in his defending the band of injustice, sins, vices and the cursed tree as called in the holy Quran.
After we saw those shameful words that al-Ghazali, who was given the title of (Hijjatul Islam),
(2) uttered without feeling shy or embarrassed, we wouldn't be surprised if we read his saying: "It is forbidden for the preacher and the others to narrate the story of the murder of al-Husayn and what happened of quarrel among the companions because it leads people to hate and fault the companions, who were the great figures of the religion.
____________
1 The Thesis of aj-Jahidh p.295.
2 A scientific degree among the ulema.
(45)
The quarrels happened between them were to be interpreted with good will. Perhaps it was mistake in interpretation the verdicts and looking forward to the rule and the pleasures of this life".
(1)
It was clear why he defended Yazeed and his band with all that misleading and distortion. He forbade that the humanity had never forced the same and a tragedy that the human beings neither had seen before not would see the same at all. He considered Yazeed and his band as the great figures of the religion, which wouldn't be straightened up without them and no one would criticize them save a doubtful or a liar.
Al-Ghazali here defended every unjust and oppressive one. He even defended Mo'awiya in his situation against Imam Ali (s) that it was not for the sake of the authority or the pleasures of the worldly life although Mo'awiya himself had denied that when he said to the people of Kuffa: "O people of Kuffa, do you think that I fought you for the sake of prayer, paid Zakat and performed hajj? But I fought you to have the authority over you and Allah granted me that although you were unwilling. Know well that any money seized and any blood shed in this sedition will be in vain and every condition I stipulated will be under my feet."
(2)
We don't have to stay long with every fabricated lie al-Ghazali said in his book Ihya'ul Oloom, which was full of foolishness, lies, deviation and deceit. We just wanted, by showing these examples, to give a clear image about those men, with whom the Islamic umma was afflicted, whereas they were just traders of the worldly life trading under the name of the religion. If it was not so, ibnul
____________
1 Al-Ghadeer, vol.10 p.211 from Tafseer Roohul Bayan, vol.4 p.142 by Isma'eel al-Buroossawi.
2 Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol.4 p.6 and al-Ghadeer, vol.10 p.326.
(46)
Arabi wouldn't say: "Al-Husayn was killed by the verdict of his grandfather (Muhammad)."
(1) He thought that Yazeed was the legal imam and al-Husayn revolted against him and hence killing al-Husayn was the legal punishment according to the Sharia of his grandfather!
Ibnul Arabi was different from al-Ghazali in his frankness. They agreed upon the thought and the aim but the second offered the poison mixed with what he thought as honey... and the other offered it barely; its appearance showing its inner malice and wickedness.
Ibn Khaldoon wasn't satisfied to defame one of the pure Prophet's thundering word: "Ahlul Bayt
(2) deviated with beliefs they invented and jurisprudence they adopted by themselves...and all of that was invalid. The Kharijites also deviated with things like that but the public (they mean, when saying the public, the Sunni sects) didn't pay any attention to their beliefs. In fact they denied them and slandered them so widely. We don't know anything about their beliefs and we don't read their books, which the Shia are available in the west (Morocco), the east and Yemen where their state was existing. The same is to be said about the Kharijites. Each sect has its private books and odd thoughts of jurisprudence."
(3)
What a pride of ibn Khaldoon it was when he left aside the jurisprudence of Ahlul Bayt! The imams of Ahlul Bayt (s) hadn't invented any heresy. If their sayings led to heretical beliefs, as ibn Khaldoon said, they were but derived from the holy Quran, which purified them. So let the Quran be the source of the heresies of Ahlul Bayt!
Another pride of ibn Khaldoon: he made Ahlul Bayt equal to the Kharijites, who deviated from the religion, to
____________
1 Muqaddimat ibn Khaldoon p.217.
2 The Prophet's family.
3 Muqaddimat ibn Khaldoon, p.446.
(47)
give a conclusion that Ahlul Bayt had deviated from Islam like the Kharijites according to the Prophet (s), who informed of the deviation of the Kharijites in his traditions.
A third pride of him: he denied and slandered the belief of Ahlul Bayt, which was the essence of Islam, so widely.
Some had exceeded in that until they contradicted the very Sunna, which they used to follow, just because the followers of Ahlul Bayt (the Shia) followed, in order not to imitate anything the Shia did.
Here we have to show some of those contradictions, which were committed intendedly just because the Shia followed as a prophetic Sunna: the Sunna decided that the tomb must be level, as it was preferable by the Shafiites too, but there were some, who said: "Humping the tomb would be better because leveling the tomb became as a mark of the Shia."
(1)
Al-Ghazali and al-Mawardi said about that: "Leveling the tombs was the legal thing but when the Shia adopted it, we turned to humping."
(2)
The same was about the ring. According to the Sunna, it was to be worn on the fingers of the right hand but there were some, who said: "It was traditional to wear the ring on the fingers of the right hand but when the Shia took it as a token, we began to wear it on the fingers of the left hand."
(3)
By this doing they intended to contradict the Shia, who followed the true Sunna, and to follow Mo'awiya, who was the first one to wear it on the left hand.
Many often you find impudent statements like these: "...but it became as a token of the Shia and it must be
____________
1 Al-Ghadeer, vol.10 p.209.
2 Ibid p.210
3 Ibid.
