A Replay To Belief of Mahdism in Shia Imamate

51. Standard of Mercy “lotf” ============================

The writer has discussed in length this subject. The main theme is the dispute which has argued both Asha’ira and Motazila, what it goes to good and evil and which rejects one (Asha’ira) and confirms the other who is Motizala.

We have repeatedly said that Shiasm is an independent school; its originality is that of Islam, it is not influenced by any extraneous thoughts or any exotic ideas; it is strictly in line coherent, congruous, and concurring with the teachings of the Impeccable and Infallible Imams. In logical issues, arguments have included the standard of LOTF (MERCY OR GRACE). The Shia has followed and benefited from the Holy Quran. The gist of belief, the theme of faith, the kernel of trust lies with the holy persons of the Imams in the Shia school of thought. This is very close to reason that the ITEZAL sect might have extracted many things from Shiasm, and depended on Shia thought. Their leaders could have been the pupils of our Imams.

‘LOTF’, or GRACE with the GHEEBAT (absence) of the twelfth Imam is mostly rejected by the Sunnis. The writer has reiterated the reply from the Shia sources. We suffice on that.

The occultation of the twelfth Imam is a thing in itself an independent subject, already foretold by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself. Ah Bin Abi Taleb too has referred to it. Shia and Sunni traditions have both mentioned it. Jaber too has said that the absence of the twelfth Imam is a grace (LOTF). The Prophet (SAW) said: “By him who has sent me with the Message, they will be illuminated by his light, and they will benefit from his guardianship, as people benefit from the sun from behind the clouds.”

To deny every ‘LOTF’ (Grace or mercy) of the existence of the absent Imam, and to deny its influence, that is, the graceful or merciful one, in the era of his absence (GHEEBAT) does not fall in line with reason. The grace, mercy or the ‘LOYF’ exists, as it is contemporary with the existence of the Imam whether he be present or absent from touch or sight. If not so, then for humans what is the usefulness of him - a Divine choice - obliged by Divine will to remain in hiding.

God does not do a thing, which is vain and void of sense, or short of benefit, or lame in advantage. Whatever proceeds from the wish or will of God bears fruit to mankind. Fecundity is His intention; prolific to His design; grace and mercy his degree; and LOTF His Imam the hidden Imam is an absolute personification of His mercy. It is through ‘LOTF’ that the Imam should be appointed by God and designated through the Prophet (SAW). Imam is in GHEEBAT, that is, he is absent; but the mercy is current - the snows of the Himalayas are far from sight, but the Ganges flows down to the Bay of Bengal. In Bengal, the Himalaya peaks are not visible nor are they in other regions; but the Ganges flows, irrigating vast patches of land throughout the Northern Belt to the East. Since we do not see the snows of the Himalayas should we deny the existence of the Ganges river as well? If it is not a mercy, then Mahdi is not an Imam. It is his Imamate that makes him graceful to man. It is the scent of a flower that gives it worth. Flowers made of paper could be more elegant; but they have no grace of odor and no LOTF of fragrance. Tosi says: “The Imam’s existence is LOTF, his action LOTF.” Ali Bin Abi Taleb says: “Else, the proofs of God will be void and vain will be His signs.” An Imam whether present or absent is a ‘grace’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘LOTF’ of God because he is His sign, guardian of His religion, holds His office and was chosen by Rim. The Imam who can carry out or execute the office of Imam hood also imparts the GRACE of God. To deny him the GRACE is to deny him the Imamate.

It is not possible that, a Prophet can not guide or influence the people. The mercy of his prophet hood can not be denied, because of its essentiality with prophet hood, and its being in consistence with the office of prophet hood. To appoint an Imam is God’s mercy, and mercy from God is His obligation towards His servants and creatures.

God has appointed the son of Imam Hasan Askari as the Imam. If we deny it, it tantamount to say that God has abstained from bestowing mercy upon us in the period of GHEEBAT. To say so is to deny God. It is by His Mercy that we have an Imam. His GHEEBAT (absence) does not reject the reality whatever hails from God - is LOTF; the 12th Imam is LOTF and his GHEEBAT is LOTF because it is God’s order.

52. ISMAT (INFALLIBILITY) of 12TH IMAM:

The writer has claimed that due to his research, he has come to the following conclusions; that the theory of “Esmat” or immunity from sin has come about and even grown deeper as time has passed, because of the distance between the people and the Imams. He uses IBN BABWAY and Mofeed as his witnesses.

A belief remains stable throughout the passage of time. Everything else along with time diminishes changes and even vanishes. A true religion does not undergo this element. A true religion remains original. The present day belief of the Shia is consistent with the past. The flow of ages has not decreased nor increased it. That the Shia in the earlier ages did not believe in the ‘ESMAT’; is a statement groundless and unfounded. As they grew distant from the Imams they believed in their ‘ESMAT’. In the words, the factor of this belief is the distance. This way of thinking is utterly ignorant. The Shias have always held the same belief. He has preserved what the school of Imamate or in particular, the school of Imam Jafer Sadiq (AS) has given to him. His belongings are of a known origin and of a trustworthy brand. Likewise the belief of Shaikh Mofeed was not a new one.

The narration, traditions, and interpretations of the Quranic verses have been used as his base. What SADOOQ says in ‘AYUN’, is not of his invention. What a Moslem knows generally, he has collected in ‘AYUN’ we do not see a thing of non-existence changing its guise to something of existence. What Shiasm has said is only the echo of what the Prophet (SAW) had uttered or the Imams had told. The issue of ESMAT. The immunity from sin, is no exception to this rule. Sadooq has repudiated the idea. But from his tongue a great many lies are being born. The Prophet’s sayings of THAQALAIN (two heavy things), and his words “ALI is WITH TRUTH AND TRUTH WITH ALI”, “ALI is WITH THE QURAN AND THE QURAN WITH ALI” all these and several other ones have elucidly expound and enlarged the comprehension and the very gist of ESMAT. The writer asks as to why the Shia paid or pay heed to these words of the Prophet (SAW). Or why they draw a meaning out of the sayings of the prophet or recite the Quran and try to understand it? Why isn’t the writer prepared to conceive that without ESMAT, there can be no Imam or prophet? ESMAT is fundamental and it is the condition that qualities the imam for Imamhood. No one has this except those chosen ones. Then, no one is a prophet or imam except the chosen ones.

53. A COLLECTIVE REJECTION TO THE CALIPHATE OF ABUBAKR:

As for ‘IJMA’, or ‘agreement’, the writer says at the end of ESMAT. The Shia Imamia regard this method as being void and null because of the pressure of an Imam amidst the people. The writer adds that the Shia have chosen to disregard the consensus (IJMA) of Sunnis who did the same to give a legitimacy to the caliphate of Abubakr.

Let us explain here that it had no bearing on the caliphate of Abubakr at all. An Imam should enter into consensus (IJMA); else, he has no validity. To give value or credit or authenticity to an ‘IJMA’ in which the Imam might not have participated is wrong and not valid.

Next, Abubakr did not carry any consensus. He became caliph on the strength of terror, and tyranny. People were forced td acknowledge his authority. Is it a consensus? So; why wasn’t that consensus present with Ali Bin Abi Taleb? Why didn’t the men of importance among the Bani Hashem, not surrender to his authority? But the writer still calls it a consensus ‘IJMA’. If IJMA (consensus) was the way or a salutary ground that gives validity to the caliphates; why didn’t Omar go through it? No ‘IJMA’ (consensus) took place; however Omar became caliph. The criterion can not be conceived? They advocate and they act differently.

Othman as well came to power through a committee of six men appointed by Omar. Where had the ‘IJMA’ gone? They act as though public opinion means something to them. However what is obvious is that they did not care at all about the ‘IJMA’ or consensus that is the public opinion. The obvious and apparent evidence points out that three men came to power in three different ways. One, with a so called ‘IJMA’ (consensus), another, no consensus at alljust by force, the third, by a pre appointed six men committee. Mawiya too openly made his resurgence to the caliph of his time, Ali. He was a dictator - he cared for neither law nor rule, no power limited him. Where was the ‘IJMA’ consensus now? The writer ignores that the ‘IJMA’ was scalped, and changed to meet their demands. The writer knows well that those rulers and caliphs had no popular backing nor a publish support. The ‘IJMA’ then was a slogan, a protect, and no more. If a real ‘IJMA’, or in our acquainted term, a referendum were to be launched they would see who would succeed and who would lose. Caliphs such as Abu Bakr, Othman and Mawiya were put into power by a few people who were motivated by their own interests. They met and agreed; they designed, decided and acted - there always hung a veil and they named this secrecy as a referendum ‘IJMA’. Tyranny stood at hand to come to their aid. 54. ABOUT “IJMA” AGAIN MISTAKES:

The writer says that in order to invalidate the authority of Abu Bakr the Shia subjected the ‘IJMA’ to the participation of an infallible Imam. It was a reality that any ‘IJMA’ or referendum could lose authencity if the Imam did not participate in it. If ‘IJMA’ is their ground why was Ah absent in that ‘IJMA’? There were many besides Ali who did not know of such an ‘IJMA’ at all. The Imam was not referred to; he was not asked at all; his opinion was never sought; in fact, it was kept an arcanum from him. Then what referendum or “IJMA” was it!?! This is a trick, misleading the public under the name of ‘EJMA’. The result is always deceiving because the IJMA is deceiving. In truth, in reality, in fact, can the writer tell us that Abu Bakr reached power on the strength of public opinion - EJMA? If so, why was it that in the EJMA many were not present? Ali’s opinion was not important? Was he not one among Muslims; was it not important what he said? His opinion was never sought. So, this was not an ‘EJMA’. Let them seek for some other name. This ‘EJMA’ with a design preplanned and a malefic motive worked out into long concealed implacability.

Acrimony was from its very foundation, and from the very beginning it was invalid, vague, void, and null nothing beyond a show. But the name still stood ‘EJMA’. The Prophet’s (SAW) corpse was still fresh in the ground. It was only Ali (AS) busy and occupied in his funeral, and they in their plan and feigned ‘EJMA’. It originated, as we said earlier, in order to save face. The Prophet (SAW) died. They left his side and hurried to SAQIFA. ABUBAKR was declared there as caliph. None knew except some who held contradicting motives adversary intentions and inimical designs. To this the writer has given the name of ‘EJMA’. The course of Islam was changed while the body of the Prophet (SAW) still on the ground was not yet buried. People were astonished. Force was used and terror was applied in order to silence them and obtain their acceptance. They conceived of plan in order to give them legitimacy. They decided to brand it with the mark of ‘EJMA’. A saying from the Prophet (SAW) too imputed; “My nation does not gather over wrong nor go astray.” If this was the ground of legitimacy, then what was the legitimacy for Omar, Othman, Mawiya and several others becoming caliphs? Why was the EJMA not practicable there or why did they not resort to it? No answer.

IMPORTANT POINT

The writer goes so far as to say that the Shia belief or Shiasm took its form gradually on the ladder of events. That it was product of accidents and a manufacture of episodes is completely untrue. We reiterate that the Shia belief or Shiasm is rooted in Islam. As the Book said so it is; as the Prophet demonstrated so it is. A great scholar, ABAN BIN TAQLAB, of the Sunni thought, was asked as to what a Shia and Shiasm is. He replied: “A Shia is he who follows Ali (AS). If for instance all the companions or associates of the Prophet (SAW) happened to agree over an issue and Ali happened to differ from it, or the whole Nation agreed over a thing and Imam Jafer Sadiq’s word differed with it, a Shia would obey the Imam’s word.” The authority is the word of the Imam, although ‘EJMA’ might have preceded it. The Imam is immune from sin and the Shia depends on the Imam and act by his guidance. The oldest Sunni sources have confirmed the truth of Shiasm.

**55. RETURN OF MAFIDI: ** What was predicted did not produce a result, what was foretold was not applicable; circumstances did not come under the fang of prediction; hence, the appearance of the 12th Imam remained uncertain. The writer says this. The time of appearance of the Imam was and still is unknown. Therefore, there was no prediction in this respect. The Shia knew this. There was no uncertainty about it nor is there today. If the writer says the uncertainty lies in the belief he is wrong. The matter is clear. Knowledge of time is known to no one except God. That the Shias in hopes of the future, abstain from taking part in politics is wrong. The political activity of Shias is undeniable. Sometimes Shias have remained aloof and at a distance from politics which again in itself is a policy. Religious prudency dictates at interludes for policies to vary. Many only look at the periphery of the events. The political stand that a Shia takes is on the fundamental of a campaign. He opposes a tyrant government and supports anything having to do with belief. His position has always been strong solid in the political field.

56. THE RISE (QIAM) OF MAIWI:

The writer has tried with obvious efforts to minimize the value of the belief in Mahdi. He constantly repeats his allegations. He goes on saying that the Ommiyads, as well as the Abbasids lost ground and power. The Shia became hopeful and encouraged. This did not last long. Despair and disappointment overtook him. The writer says next that a few appeared in the role of Mahdi.

Shias again became hopeful. A new dimension was given to Mahdism. The writer proceeds to say that several faces were given to the belief and to the Redeemer. Also several HADITH (traditions) were told in this respect. The writer says that sometimes various signs were pronounced as to the appearance of the Imam in order to tranquilize the Shia and drown him into intoxication. The defeat of the Bani Abbas rulers had no part in the bloom of Shiasm. They were like HALAKO dictators. The Bani Abbas rulers were more or less believers in Mahdi - the twelfth Imam. One of their caliphs, Naser, considered himself as a deputy of the twelfth Imam. The story of ISMAEEL HARQALI indicates that caliph MOSTAZEE had a belief in Mahdi.

Secondly, the Shia never despaired. There was no reason for this nor any cause. The writer’s conclusion is unfounded. As we have said before, the Shia has maintained his own belief. Since the early days of Islam all Muslims inclusive of the Shia believed in the advent of a Redeemer. The Holy Quran says that good doers will inherit the earth.

The believers in Mahdism are charged with vigor in waiting that day. The science books of ancient times, like the ZABOOR and TORA also give similar promises. Certain people have always tried with great effort to create chaos and discolor this belief. It was by Divine consent that this belief was revealed to the Prophets David, Moses and Mohammad (SAW). It was revealed to Prophet Mohammad what the future would hold. These hidings has circulated from mouth to mouth and traveled on the wings of time, ages have fluttered, and centuries have flustered to carry it to us to remind us of the advent of Mahdi. Whatever the endeavor, whatever the effort, whatever the try; this tower can not be pulled down by any distraction because REASON has stood as a foundation to its erection.

57. NEAR FIJTURE-THE RISE (QIAM) OF MAHDI:

In this chapter one does not read the writer’s mind but sees his identity. With whatever weapon available to him, he assaults Shiasm with a malicious intention. How sad it is to see one, such as him giving in to worldly advantages. However flagitious the intention we shall not despise him. An imperturbable soul gapes for understanding. We shall endure the writer, to pity him in his attempt to plot against Shiasm.

In my good will I had considered him to be a Shia in the prelude of this treatise, however now I may censured of predilection towards him. He seems not to have any obligation or malevolent ends toward writing the book. However he can not be vindicated in not having one, have met him briefly, and to me, he posed as an ardent believer in the Shia faith and a staunch adheres to the Shia school. I still think good of him and still entertain goodwill towards him. I am willing to conjecture that this man should have written the book in order to echo what the adversaries have said, or make his book popular with those who are researchers in Islam or in Middle Eastern studies so as to show himself disguised as a Muslim bigot. I have nothing better to say of him. God alone knows; He is All knowing and He knows the secrets hidden in one’s heart. Quite likely he wants to please many groups at the cost of the anguish of Shiasm. We should regretfully admit that a strange and unearthly notion is in vogue and the vogue is effulging among new comers.

Of course, they hold themselves amenable to their conscience; and they only display their own derailment. If they wish to barrow their own faith it will be their own mistake in which they have chosen the smelly stench over the fresh, sweet fragrance of flowers.

The time too is encouraging, and books are being written which could propagate the vilification of a religion rather than a religion itself. To mock faith is to gain a furor. To negate, nullify, and invalidate, is the most befitting style that a writer may choose to follow. Unfortunately writers without a zeal to keep the faith in whatever they are born in or to maintain one at whichever they are, or to seek one instead of posing as nullifidians. Under a membrane of religion they enter and rob the belief leaving behind traces of doubt. In such a hurricane stands firm the mansion of Shiasm; the waves ever falling beat themselves upon the tower and return scattered and split, feeble and flaccid having had squandered their strength and lost their prowess.

Therefore, they like the books, which interrogate the essentiality or reality of a religion and debate it on the ground of visible and tangible matter rather than to prove its truth. They reward such a writer and regard such a book. The proof whether that of hearing or that of reason to them is not wholesome. They want DOUBT - to be said, to be read, and to be believed in. We have no dispute with the writer himself nor do we wish to quarrel him. We leave it to him to mend his mistakes. We have indicated in the proceeding discourses the way and method of analysis. We face here two angles; One- the wrong conclusions, accusations and wrong allegations are made by a particular man; Two- the way of research that amounts to science or knowledge seems to us personal. So, we can not take a seat of judgment nor do we like to pass one.

Now we draw the attention of our readers to his statements and afterwards to our answers. Partly his statement runs thus:

1. Some narrations (i.e. ‘HADITH’) like that of Abi Hamza he refers to; in which the appearance of the Imam was considered a relief and rescue. However the Imam did not appear which imputed the change of God’s mind. At first God has made up His mind then later changed it. He says that it was ‘BADA’. ‘BADA’ means first occurrence of a thing, that is, an ‘occurrence’ without precedent or without pre-knowledge or a pre-plan.

2. He says: “In the principal beliefs of a Shia it is permissible to think that God decides to do something but because of unforeseen circumstances which impede an becomes a hindrance, he of Shia either delays His plan or totally cancels it. The name of this theory is “BADA” means ‘OCCURRENCE’ without a precedent. He continues that the doctrine of “BADA” was introduced by the earlier leaders of Shia. They brought forward this theory in order to justify or vindicate or extenuate their own defeats or failures in establishing an Islamic just government, which they had claimed to do. Their defeat again was justified to be for their own good. So the writer says similar things.

3. According to the writer BADA goes a long way to establish that the knowledge of the Imams was parochial and limited. He argues and in his words he seems quite certain that Ismaeel was appointed Imam by his father, Imam Sadiq (AS), but died in his father’s lifetime. Hence, the Imamate was switched to another son of Imam Sadiq (SA) by the name of Kadum. This was, says the writer a “BADA” which the Imam could not have been known earlier. He appointed his son Ismaeel as Imam but he was not aware that the Imam hood was to go to Kadum his other son. The Divine decisions too change as the conditions do. The writer even questions the divine knowledge. God is not omniscient, because at some times His calculations too go wrong.

4. In the writer’s opinion the Shia deans and speakers were having in Divinity the same belief as that held by MOTAZELIS which included the theory of ‘ABAD’ (occurrence). But the ‘Occurrence’ (the BADA) was regarded by the Motazalees as being true, because God does the best for his creatures. But Ash’aries have repelled and exorcised this theory on the ground that it shows the inability of God to foresee what is to happen. So, God is short of foresight and short of full knowledge. This contradicts the quality of God. But that the Shias adopts this theory with a great mastery, so as to obviate the contrast of words and adjust this thing without contradicting their own advocacies. The writer here dwells on the theory of Sadooq in the interpretation of creation. The writer has also quoted a narration (HADITH) from Imam Jafer Sadiq (SA):

“Whoever says that God does a new thing without pre knowledge; I seek distance from him. And he who says that God sometimes does not like His own performance; he has denied God.” The writer has mentioned several other HADITHS, and narration quoted in the Quranic verses, which all prove that God’s knowledge is absolute and circles everything and circumferences all. The Shias have always held this belief. It is a false accusation that the Shias regard God as not being firm in His determinations. We exorcise this allegation. The writer claims that the change of Imamhood from Ismaeel to Kadum still remains an unsettled issue. IBN BABWAY has narrated the uneasiness of Imam Sadiq (SA) with regards to the death of his son Ismaed. He reports the Imam having had said: “Nothing has indicated God’s will more evidently than what has happened by the death of my son.” He adds: “perhaps he would have been the Imam after me had he lived.” This appears as a mistake in translation. His actual words mean this: “Let people know that he is not the Imam after me. Actually there is no any such word that confirms the Imam hood of Ismaeel. The thing that is confirmed is his death and the Imamate of Mosa al-Kadum.”

5. Then the writer narrates the interpretation of ‘BADA’ from Shaik Mofeed, which is most accurate and conspicuous. Then he writes the statements of Shaik Tosi. But the pity is, instead of reaching to a conclusion he remarks this; “All these things puts one into hesitation with regards to all the traditions pertaining to the appearance of the Imam.” He paces the paths that of Mofeed, and that of Tosi, but did not reach the destination because his fate was to wander. He combines and says: “It seems that to appoint a day of the appearance of the Imam for Shia scholars was less than to appoint a year for this issue of dispute.” He perhaps wants to say that they abstain from fixing a month and a day in order to guard themselves against the results. But he goes on further to which we draw our reader’s careful attention.

6. Abi Hamza has narrated from Imam Baqer (AS) that, Ali Bin Abi Taleb has said that after seventy there will be relief. Here the writer comments: Because of the martyrdom of Imam Hussain it was delayed until the year 140. Then when the Shias did not keep it a secret, it was once more delayed. God did not keep the knowledge of its time with any of the Imams.

This narration is discrepant. In the books of ‘RIJAAL’, that is the biography of the narrators, Abi Hamza died in the year 150. Hasan Bin Mahboob who has narrated on the authority of Abi Hamza died in the year 224 at the age of seventy-five. This shows that when Abi Hamza died Hasan Bin Mahboob was only a child of one year. So, this narration is invalid because a child of one can not possibly tell what the writer wants to be told. There should be someone else between him and Abi Hamza. Since it is unknown as to who he was we can not credit this narration. As we said before, the source of news must be accepted and supported by authority. This news is quite vague because there is no support to it.

What appears to us is this; in spite of the innumerous sayings of the prophet (SAW) and the Imams (HADITH) all of them from reliable sources, and quite clear to us say that the appearance of the twelfth Imam will be unknown and an indefinite length of time will have to elapse. In the horizon near and close there would be no sign to see of his appearance. There are lectures and speeches by Ali Bin Abi Taleb, in which he has elucidly said that the Imam would appear at a time when time will be at the threshold of the end. He has also foretold the ordeals that the believers would have to undergo, and the sufferings they would have to endure. The writer pays no regard to these sayings but sticks to the utterance of one man!

2. The determination of God varies, differs and changes. If the translation be correct; we take refuge in God alone from this nonsense. Destiny is changeable but not the will of God. Does God make a decision in ignorance, and then turn it down at the time of cognosance and knowledge? Is God unknowing at sometimes and knowing at others? May God forbid? The writer believes such and such a belief suits the writer himself. Shias never believe in such a ‘Kufr’ pagan hood. This conjecture is totally refuted, and rejected by the Shia. Shiasm is clear, cogent, and candid; and a Shia is clean. God is almighty and far from being what His enemies attribute Him to be. The Shia knows Him that His qualities are perfect and they worship Him accordingly. Qualities of perfection and those, which complete the beauty, are His. What happened is in the cronical of His cognizance. What occurs is in His knowledge and what will be is in His attention. Time has no province on His Being. He governs time. Everything is circumvented and circumfrenced by His Absolute awareness. He knows what each womb hides. To say that He is partly ignorant and partly wise is wrong. Ignorance is for humans.

Whatever we know; was known before by Him. Knowledge is His tribute while to us it is an achievement; knowledge rests with Him whereas it is sought by us. What is sought can amount to more or less, because it depends upon the length of seeking. However God’s knowledge is boundless and unlimited. We need knowledge; we crawl from IGNORANCE towards knowledge; so we leave one to gain another. We are in constant migration from want to need, from less to more, from short to perfection. But perfection is a tribute of God. He never stands needy to seek that which supplies and caters this is the outlook of the Shia towards his God.

3. Doctrine of “Occurrence without precedent” (BADA) is not a Shia invention nor is it his fancy. This has long ago been waired off and reputed by Shia scholars. If it is to be discussed; it is a factor that of Quranic and Islamic values as well as that of the Unity of God. First of all the Shia neither handled this element justify any defeat, or to accommodates political end. This theory of “BADA” is a column in the science of divinity. It is not a tool so as to be tightened or loosened as needed. The Holy Quran says; “If the people of the villages had believed and feared we would have opened over them blessings from heaven and the earth.

But they lied and we punished them for what they were doing.” Also: “Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea by what the hands of the people have earned.”, “And told your Lord; ‘Call me I answer to you.”, “Repent to your Lord. He is the Forgiver. He sends rains for you through the sky.”, “And, We promised thirty nights to Moses and completed them by ten.”, “Its Faith was its advantage had believed a village. But the nation of Yunus when they believed we waived off the punishment from that of shame in the world and left them for while.”, “If you are thankful, I, indeed, will increase it for you.”, “And he who fears God, He makes a way out to him and provides him that he calculates not.”, “That God never changes His boundaries which He favored upon a nation unless they change what in themselves.” And several other such verses.

The Shia believes in the absolute power and all comprising knowledge of God. “Nothing is hidden from Him in the earth nor in the sky. He is the knower of the conditions of this servants and His creatures - their past, their present and their future are at parity to Him. Nothing hides from Him and never poses a thing to Him from ignorance to knowledge.” These are what Shias believe of God. From the foregoing verses of the Quran this secure is known. Gratitude becomes reason for the increase of the bounties from God. Piety paves a way to come out of the difficulties, and God sends to him Provision from the quarters, which he can think of. He sends His rains. He attends the needs at supplication. Faith, repentance, and compunction.

He wards off the punishment. His advantage of His bounties causes one to miss His bounties. To support this there are traditions from both Sunni and Shia sources which abound much. Events too, there are in this respect. Religious programs, instructions, supplication, and dependents on Him. Compunction, alms, establishing link among family relations, gratitude, good hidings, warrant, negative and positive teachings, relieving ones soft and getting rid of self purity and purgency all can not be justified on the ground of BADA as the writer has interpreted it. “BADA” means the influence of the things on man’s life and his good ending and likewise his bad ending; and not in the sense of ignorance of God.

Sometimes there are causes that result in a thing or reasons that cause a thing. Likewise the causes result in something not to happen, or impede an occurrence. Or its effects further go ahead in advancing negative influence or positive ones. So, the outcome of it comes out strange neither a calculation could anticipate nor could anticipation calculate. It is an odd cycle of currency of events or the sudden anicut of impediments, obstacles, hindrances - a flux and reflux, a wave and a bed of sea, a vacuum and a tower of equrgitation, a total obviation and an apparent surprise; all this is a well organized decree of Divine projected, planned, and programmed for man and man has no say in it. All these things, effects, reflections, action of the causes and their stagnancy are recorded in the gist of the Book. These things have bearing on the choice of man but occur by the will of God in accordance with the destiny He has dictated. So there is no coersian nor is it a delegated one, but it is in between the two. “Neither a compulsion nor an assignment but something between the two things.” God has decreed that the fire burns; every creature thrives in its own line. But the causes of annihilation and establishment, that is, the essentialities of ‘being’ for many incidents or many obstacles, which in some cases are materialistic humans, are adhibited to them; these are not called ‘BADA’. The term of BADA implies to the occurrences unusual and uncommon, like charity, supplication, links amidst relatives that influence or happenings or hinder the happenings, and man regards them by judging the visible material causes as a certainty, but occurs the opposite. Both the cases are the same. In one a man notices the flow of affairs and calculates thereon as to where they would end, and makes out the consequences in anticipation. In the second, the flow of affairs gives a man an impression on which he makes up the result in advance; but occurs quite the opposite of what was once a certainty.

Human is not acquainted because it is from an invisible atmosphere. Since man knows not, he tries to establish arguments whereas from Him is everything. The synopsis of BADA in the sense gives this verse of the Holy Quran; “And the Jews said that both hands of God are tied. Tied are their hands; they are cursed for what they said; for God’s both hands are open.”

Like the belief of the Jews that Gods hands are tied, can not do a thing; this is to negate ‘BADA’, while its correct meaning is that, God’s hands are open; His Power is Absolute without stint and with Absolute knowledge. In order to make it clear we would like to repeat our explanation:

Supposingly, the correct meaning of ‘BADA’ is the sense in which God is taken for granted as being ignorant; and whit does not contradict the idea that God’s power is limited, runs opposite to reason.” He is powerful over everything and aware of everything”, seems the best synopsis of ‘BADA’. God has so designed things that they possess particular reasons for the being, which is, the How of events, likewise their effects. The hidden causes, which in thousands is the work of God either immediately or otherwise have a bearing on God’s decree. Fire burns - cause and effect is deposited in it; but the efficacy of it that is, the eventuality of it depends upon the will of God. In this respect the invisible causes and absence of matter, also play a part, their influence is effective and for stretching, such a dependency upon God and supplication and so forth. Now the factors among those of material and moral ones superceded the stranger.

For example a general corollary of maintaining family thinks among relatives is longevity. ‘BADA’ does not depend on material causes. Moral causes as for God’s design are effective. Above all, what God intends - overruns all. Where effect work, it gets ground; where obviation eradicates the track of a thing, it is also due to reasons of its own. The rule of cause and effect is superceded by God’s decree. Therefore, the unseen causes become a ground to be believed in. “Every day He is in business”; proves this. “To Him is the Command, order and creation. To God is the rule that of present and that the past”; and the continuity of His government and all the qualities of action which should be believed in.

Without His consent, intention, sanction and without His order nothing moves and nothing happens. Our inability to understand Divine affairs and the links therein and there from does not change anything. Human beings are unable to understand Divinity. Many have belief in God but they do not have knowledge about Him. God is a reality that remains remote from human. Understanding which gives sanctuary and sanctity to the entity of God. Minds can not avail the conception although reason provides the proof. It is very knowledge that we are absolutes unable to conceive God. A delicate datum of mysticism it is.

‘BADA’ could mean obliteration of effect. The interlinks are corollary to God’s plan. We see an incident that is saved from happening, a danger that is warned off; is due to causes invisible from us and from the unseen origin. We can say briefly that it should mean that everything is under God’s command. Certainties fail if not concomitant with His Will. This conception is supported by “And with Him is the gist of the Book.”

Such interpretations are made by many scholars, which go to prove that “BADA”s logic and reason does not attribute to God’s inability to conceive the haughtier. Shiasm deals with the fact that man should never forget God, and should not depend on outer elements or visible causes. Man should believe in this verse: “Say o, God you are the Possessor of things, give the things to whomever you like and take back the things from whomever you want and give respect and vility, in your Hand is the food; You are powerful over everything.” Without such a belief, which is the true reflection of ‘BADA’, man can not cultivate wisdom nor can he pace the path of knowledge. To him the ladder of ascendancy to higher altitudes would not be available in which to attain the exalted anagogic that could bring to his sight the divine regions to enjoy. This belief is natal to him and innate with him. His conscience can not deny that which his ignorance rejects. In times of dread one remembers God and calls Him by His exalted nouns - PROVIDER (REZZAKH), CURER (SHAFI),

SUFFICER (KAFI), and PROTECTOR (HAFIZ) all these have a bearing on “DADA” “Nothing worships God like AL-BADA”; shows the importance of BADA. The compendium of BADA comes out that it does not limit the power of God, and does not contradict the absolute knowledge of God. The sense of BADA is misrepresented. It is imputed to the limit of God’s knowledge. It is not so. It has been confused with the saying of the Jews. There appear to be two confusions:

First: The compulsion; whatever occurs is with and in the knowledge of God, however the knowledge comes to Him later. Of course, this is not permissible for God’s tributes. “Everyday occurrences happen that are in His knowledge; He creates, provides, and create obstacles. All are His performances. Nothing would nor will happen beyond the province of His knowledge and nothing He could do is beyond the limit of His knowledge. This shows where He has no knowledge, He is ignorant, and where He is ignorant He can do nor create anything. But the qualities of God do not accept such specifications. God is above all these things. His knowledge can not be limited or His Power. This is quite a worthy logic that negates the omnipotence of God, and as a result invalidates the very Divinity. We are judging God on our own capacities, which are, of course, limited in knowledge and in practice - this is a repelled conjecture. The conscience of man knows whether he is bound or free. It is just like when one doubts the heat even though he sees the fire.