Tragedy of al-Zahra’: Doubts and Responses

Preface

In the Name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful

From the very beginning, this book has been subject to many issues recently raised about the tragedy of al-Zahra’ (sa) and what she had to go through following the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) and about other issues relevant to her (sa) in a way which demanded me to clarify and edit.

Before dealing with what is most important, I like to remind the dear reader of issues and points most of which are relevant to agitations in the cycle of scholarly research and with which he has to be familiar. I have already dealt with some of them in an article which was published months ago titled “Not above making a mistake.”

I would like here to provide the kind reader with some of them in this Preface also due to their importance. He may not be able to refer to them in the said article. Following are points repeated or edited, and it is from Allah that all success comes.

Important Points to Notice

The points referred to above, which I discuss in this book, have been mentioned in many books, articles, lectures, press, radio or television interviews. I took special care not to name the person who made them in order not to hurt his feelings, for I did not want to tickle his conscience in the least. I have always desired to maintain my friendship with and love for everyone, wishing all people goodness. Had I not felt duty-bound to explain some of these issues, I would not have undertaken this review at all.

If someone considers what is contained in this book as being relevant to him and to nobody else, following the principle of “The skeptic almost said, ‘Take me!,’” then he may do just that. But I advise him not to do so because I mean by it anyone who says likewise, whoever he may be.

In your scholarly life, you may come across some of those folks who bear titles or labels and who parasite on education and knowledge, waging a scandalizing campaign against anyone who differs from them in views or who discuss such views with them, even according to the principle which one person in particular applied in order to support Yazid son of Mu’awiyah, when he considered cursing the latter as committing a wrongdoing. Said he, “But such sects fell into curses and condemnations, not satisfied with cursing and condemning the accursed Shimr but went beyond him to Mu’awiyah, Yazid and Banu Umayyah.”[^1]

If I, too, face such sort of people, it does not frighten me in the least, nor does it prohibit me from writing books similar to this one that discuss various subjects put forth in a scholarly, subjective and calm manner, so long as there is a need to discuss them, or if I feel that the Islamic Shari’a obligates me to adopt a stand towards them. It has become quite obvious that there is no room to make a truce with regard to the creed, to the issues relevant to the creed, and to whatever relates to Ahl al-Bayt (as). I shall never pay attention to the intimidating attempts of some of such folks, for these are like mirage which the thirsty person mistakes for water.

Let Allah make righteousness prevail through His Words and cause the effort of the treacherous to go to waste.

Some people may say that discussing the ideas and criticizing them is regarded as scandalizing those who uphold them. The latter should be safeguarded and their mistakes should be covered up rather than publicized.

Let me say the following:

FIRST: If discussing and criticizing the ideas is “scandalizing”, all doors of knowledge and scholarship have to be shut; constructive criticism should be prohibited. Criticizing the ideas, even of the greatest scholars, has been throughout history the mark that distinguishes thinkers and scholars, especially those who follow the school of Ahl al-Bayt (as).

SECOND: Prohibitive scandalizing is one that deals with personal matters. Not so is the constructive and subjective criticism, nor o sot the correcting of mistakes in the doctrinal issues and issues relevant to conviction and ideology, especially if such mistakes reflect on people’s creeds, religious issues and concepts of conviction. These remain to be the most urgent of all. Safeguarding people’s religion is the most important and obligatory, more so than protecting those who jeopardize it or transgress its limits.

Everyone has to know his limits. He should not try to undermine issues and fixed beliefs of the faith, creed and conviction.

THIRD: Taking the initiative to criticize an ideology is neither victimizing nor scandalizing. Rather, insistence on bringing about issues which jeopardize the established creed, sect, history or other things, in a way which lacks scholarly precision and transgresses natural limits. Doing so does, indeed, lead to scandalizing one who espouses them.

Some people may be of the view that tackling some fixed creeds represents a form of innovative thinking, Islamic or historical education, and the like.

But the fact is that what is regarded as falling in such a category, generally speaking, represents a call to discuss issues which others in past generations had already discussed. Even many of them mention some such issues nowadays when holding discussions with Imamite Shi’as. Such a discussion traverses the folds of their words, spoken and sectarian renunciations, in their books, as any informed researcher knows. Imamite Shi’as have always answered the same clearly and precisely, in a responsible and an aware way, praise to Allah.

There is a statement which we have heard and read more than once saying that we should not have any apprehension against putting issues forth to people to discuss. It claims that the Qur’an has conveyed to us the thoughts of those who cast doubts about the Prophet (S) saying, “How can we know what they said about him being a madman, a wizard, or a liar, had the Qur’an not revealed their antagonistic stances?”

Let me say the following:

FIRST: Their claim that he (S) was a wizard, a liar, or a madman does not represent “ideologies” of those who cast doubts; rather, it is merely cursing, condemning and insulting the Messenger of Allah (S) within the scope of their media assaults against him. Those who personally said so, more than anyone else, knew very well that they were lying.

SECOND: Raising questions and throwing doubts and insults, accusing the Prophet (S), or anyone else…, is not considered an expression of an ideology, much less the “modernization” of an ideology.

THIRD: While narrating the statements of these folks, the Qur’an mentioned them as responding to the first party, falsifying them. The Qur’an was not satisfied with just bringing them about. Nor did it leave them up in the air so that they would rest in the hearts of people who had no means of knowledge to enable them to subject them to their judgment with precision, awareness and depth.

Some people say that the scholar’s responsibility is to demonstrate his knowledge when innovations appear within and without the Islamic reality, and if he does not do so, the curse of Allah will then be on him, as the Prophet (S) has said. Allah has said,

“Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed, after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too)” (Qur’an, 2:159).

Acting on this same statement, I have all my scholarly life obligated myself to face any challenge agitated from within or without the Islamic reality if and when it represents something new in our ideological heritage, or in our faith, or in the true sect the truth of which has been verified by the symbols of Islam, the pioneers of original Shi’ism, the flagpoles of scholarship, with clear proofs and shining evidences.

Someone may turn his own claim into his only definite evidence, so think about it!
Someone may try to undermine the proofs established by the scholars regarding a creed or some other issue. Regardless of his failure or success in such regard, when he does not provide an alternative evidence, he will thus give up the same creed whose proof he claims he has undermined, for he cannot uphold a creed for which he has no proof except if he imitates an authority in doctrinal matters, something which is not acceptable to anyone.
Someone may say that nobody has the right to advise him about not putting forth his own views and queries about matters relevant to the creed to ordinary people, belief in it, and the history about which he disagrees with the consensus of the sect’s scholars, symbols and genius theologians. He should not do so even if such an advice aims at safeguarding him from falling into the greatest sin. Such a sin is committed when anything which he suggests represents a serious deviation (from the creed).

Such a deviation obligates scholars, who are prohibited from hiding the knowledge and the proofs, to face him with the definite evidence, the terse proof, the similar style, or any legitimate style which explains to him and corrects him. Add to this the fact that it results in dire consequences with regard to the outcomes of these violations and their aftermaths and whatever method he imposes on others so they may deal with him and a way to face his queries, views and suggestions.

He also says, “Some people are concerned about putting ideological and doctrinal questions leading to undermining legacy ideas which may or may not be accurate.” Then he turns to people to say,

“Do not sell your minds to anyone, and do not remain stagnant as described by the verse saying, ‘We found our fathers on a course, and surely we are guided by their footsteps’ (Qur’an, 43:22),

since each generation has to open up to reality,” as he reasons. Then he provides an evidence for the necessity of putting his ideas and queries about the hadith saying, “When innovations appear, a scholar has to demonstrate his knowledge; otherwise, may the curse of All be on him,” citing the verse saying,

I say, I do not know the justification for such a serious statement which implies an accusation that some of the ideologies and creeds of our true sect may not be correct! We never thought that the followers of this sect inherit ideologies and creeds without evidence and proof but only through blind imitation which is neither accepted nor is it rational! And we never thought that the followers of this sect are the ones referred to in verse 43:22 cited above!

What is worse is the “classification” of our (“inherited”) beliefs among the “innovations,” so one needs to “demonstrate” his knowledge according to the tradition cited above!

Someone may resort to projecting any “scholarly” treatment of the statements which he makes as related to personal motivations. Then analyses and speculations start, and accusations are coined, hence people will be busy with them, forgetting what is beyond that. We do not want to obligate anyone to think well of anyone else, although we believe that if he thinks well, especially on the scholarly level, it is what Islamic brotherhood calls for.

But we remind those who are busy with “scholarship” of an obligation mandated by Allah, Glory to Him, on all, that they have to distance themselves from making speculations, charges and backbiting, since all these imply transgressing the dignity of people without any legitimate justification. Such a transgression is rejected and is considered as a violation of the injunctions of the Shari’a , religion and conscience.

We would like to remind everyone of two things:

One is that this sort of understanding of issues does not decrease the value of scholarship or ideology presented for such a treatment which may be intended to hide its effect through such means. The scholarly spirit and strength of proof are the criteria and the scales for responding or accepting, if necessary, either of these things in any problem which falls in the essence of our concern and among our priorities.

The other is that we may not find any justification for such ill thoughts because the criteria mandated by the Shari’a are the ones which should judge any situation or conduct, especially if the relationship between both parties of the debate is warm and sound across a long period of time, had it not been for such an opposition to the ideas which a certain individual wishes to publicize and advance to prominence, defending them with might and means.

It was then that the other party felt the obligation of scholarly responsibility, or that of the Shari’a, in order to clarify what it finds to be true and accurate, and there is no embarrassment about that. Had such a responsibility not been thus undertaken, there would have been doubt about its righteousness and straight-forwardness.

Someone says that whatever statements he makes are merely due to his own ijtihad, that everyone has the right to practice ijtihad and to disagree with others’ views.

I say that there is no objection to anyone practicing ijtihad and disagreeing or agreeing with others in their views as long as the issue is confined and restricted to him and represents his own personal creed and is not the creed of anyone else. But when this individual wishes to disseminate among the public his own ijtihad, which is in contrast with the foundations on which the sect stands, and which agrees with irrefutable proofs and driven to by clear, authentic and consecutive traditions, so he calls on people to accept his own statements which disagree with such foundations..., then the stand towards him must be different from anyone else.

Challenging him and protecting people from following in his footsteps is a must in order to protect people from his views which disagree with the facts of the creed and with the fixed facts which the symbols of the sect and its most prominent personalities have confirmed. Everything should be brought out into the light and the difference between him and such personalities should likewise be made clear.

The obligation to challenge his dissertations becomes more pressing when we find him presenting them to the public under the label of an “ideology” that is in sync with what our scholars have agreed on as representing revitalization and modernization. He does so while not admitting at all that they differ from many established facts in the aspects of the creed and conviction, something which agrees with neither the ideological integrity nor the ethics of a man who is a transmitter and a critic.

It may be observed how someone exaggerates in his reliance on his own reason and in giving it the main role and the final decision even in matters where reason has no ability to explore. He may even make of his reason a criterion or a yardstick, claiming that he realizes the causes of the injunctions, so he probes the texts. When he comprehends their gist and finds himself in harmony with their contents, he accepts them and agrees with them; otherwise, he does not hesitate to reject them and to judge them as having been fabricated or “secretly” introduced.

We would like to explain the above within the framework of two suppositions from which error becomes evident:

One of them is this: The outward meaning of a text may obviously and clearly contradict reason in a matter which is one of the affairs of the intellect, one falling within the realm of reason and under its supervision. In this case, the text has to be interpreted according to what agrees with reason and with the principles of expression. If this is not possible, it has to be rejected. Such a supposition is the accurate one and the one accepted by the scholars.

The other is this: One’s rationale may fall short of realizing the wisdom or the cause of what the text discusses. For example, when the text says that the menstruating woman has to make up the fast but not the prayers, or when it tells us that near the end of time, Allah will bring back to life men from among the righteous, and men from among the wretches, so the righteous will receive eminence and nearness to Allah while the wretches will be punished because of some of what they had committed, thus the hearts of the believers will be healed.

If the mind is incapable of comprehending the interpretation of such an injunction, or such an event related by the text, it will unhesitatingly reject it or demand an interpretation for it saying, for example, that the meaning implies the return of the state and of authority (to the rightful people). There is no basis for such a rejection nor for demanding an interpretation because it does not presuppose that the mind of any single individual is capable of realizing all causes and injunctions for everything which has been or which is being mandated by Allah, Glory to Him.

Likewise, if one’s brain is incapable now of realizing some matters and mysteries, it may be able to do so in the future, or nobody will. Then future generations, hundreds of years later, will come to realize them, as is the case with many mysteries of life and of the cosmos which the Qur’an mentions, some of which we have already learned from the Qur’an.

Even if we did not realize them, with such knowledge remaining in the cycle of what Allah has kept for His own knowledge, or He may have taught it to His prophets and righteous servants, what is wrong with that?!

It seems to us that going to extremes in sanctifying the mind, since it is the “one and only” source of knowledge, making it the criterion for accepting or rejecting texts even in the last probability, that is, that it is learned from the Mu’tazilites, and it is their ailment as well as elixir, the cause of their tide’s ebb, and of their fire in the past generations which was put out. Here is history repeating itself.

We now witness a return to their same claim which proves the fallacy of what has been proven by evidences, and so have other claims which time has left far behind. We now witness such claims sticking their heads out of history’s cracks and hidden corners to be redisplayed once under the guise of modernization and once in the name of a new “ideology.” Allah is the One Who initiates and Who repeats, and He is the One Who does whatever He pleases.

Someone may claim that the reason why he criticizes the ideas of this person or those of that is his desire to prepare the environment against such a person [only] because he occupies a distinguished place, so fanaticism moved in this direction or that in order to cause his downfall. We say:

FIRST: It is quite evident that many people have declared their rejection of such claims, and they discuss them. They do not live the idea or the hallucination of “positions and labels” even if it is the label or the ideology of a specific religious authority, and this does not at all fall into the cycle of their concerns.

SECOND: We may find those who make these self-indicting statements to be the ones who initiate inflammatory ideas and live the worry of promoting their ideas through all means, once raising the level of suspension and excitement, and once lowering it, and facts have proven it.

THIRD: Besides all of this, the criterion and the balance of the ideology being discussed is the element of conviction therein and its share of the balance of right and wrong as well as the extent of its nearness or distance from the facts of the religion and of the sect.

Nobody claims knowledge of the unknown in as far as what the consciences of the people, the facts and the motives; so, let their motive be this or that, for this does not affect judging an idea as being right or wrong, nor does it underestimate or overestimate its significance.

We keep hearing that someone puts forth his ideas in various fields, ideas which do not agree with what the scholars have decided, nor are they in sync with a great deal of what they all agree about, based on the irrefutable proofs which rely on reason, or on authentic reports.

An attempt was undertaken to research these matters with the same people who initiated them in the first place and who were requested in more than one letter and through more than one messenger to enter into a scholarly debate, a written and a clear one, one wherein everything is clarified and right becomes distinguished from wrong through irrefutable evidences. All this is in the hope that it will lead, if undertaken, to sparing the field the negativity of their continuous advertising through what is not recommended, before establishing facts, reaching conviction and blocking gaps.

Unfortunately, his answer came back refusing such a debate unless it would take place within four walls and behind closed doors; such is his concept of a debate!

He refused to write me even one word by way of clarification, seeking an excuse of having no time to write, although he has been writing down about these same issues, circulating them everywhere, sometimes to particular people, and sometimes to people in general. He has been discussing them in articles, speeches and lectures through various news media outlets.

When he realized my insistence, he did not hesitate to refer to his dictionary in order to provide me with precious things of color, taste and smell of stinging language, stark speech plus a barrage of accusations. It was as though my request for a scholarly debate was equivalent to disbelieving in Allah, the Great, or even uglier, if there is anything uglier than that at all!

Perhaps the least harsh which I have heard and the most tolerable is that I am motivated by instincts, suffering from backwardness and complexes, falling under the influence of this or of that [individual], in addition to being described as having the “Iranian way of thinking” and of being a fanatic, an accusation which I like because I am fanatical about following the truth and defending it. It is, to me, something which is commended and praised by Allah and His Messenger (S), by His righteous servants and choicest ones, His blessings with all of them.

Till a few months ago, prior to writing these words, I was considered (by this individual) to be among the best of those who love and who keep him company. Nothing disturbed such love and friendship till we discovered lately what we thought we were obligated by the Shari’a to ask for a calm and terse academic discourse in order to solve this “complex”.

This book before the kind reader provides a large number of texts derived from scores, nay hundreds, of references, although it was produced within months not exceeding the number of fingers on one hand, a very short period, indeed, which does not permit a great deal of researching and investigating[^2], especially in the presence of many diversions which obstruct undertaking the slightest effort during countable days.

I find myself in need to remind the kind reader that the references mentioned in this book’s footnotes were so many that I feared lest I should fall into error in documenting the numbers of their volumes and pages, as I did in many places in the publication of several editions of the same book; so, let him notice the same.

Paying a special attention to references, as has been my habit, is based on placing the reader before the most minute particularities of an incident so that he may be the one to judge, to ponder on, to conclude and to decide through upholding the means of knowledge, directly supervising the issues put forth for discussion and by his being acquainted with their environments, circum-stances and conditions, so that his attitude towards issues will then be precise and deep and springing out of awareness and inclusion, originality and firmness.

This method may not be appreciated by some people, those who write hundreds, or even thousands, of pages and who delve deeply into foundations based on exciting words and big claims without supporting them with clear texts or opening horizons of direct and inclusive knowledge except very little of what the commoners circulate or, in particular, whatever supports one’s own ideas! He keeps a great deal from you when he thinks that his interest lies in so doing. If you want to know some of it, you will find yourself without any of its means. Nor will he let you gain anything substantial, i.e. something of which you can take hold.

He wants you to read his own “education,” his experience as an individual, and to fly in his horizons, to sense his pains, hopes, aspirations and even whims and fantasies; there is nothing beyond that but mirage, and only mirage.

Again, I am very, very sorry to say that this book has not been destined to treat a particular subject with a beginning and an end as well as elements incorporating details relevant to some people casting doubts, for one reason or another, about the events that took place to al-Zahra’ (sa) or about their aftermath.

Repeated Points

I would like here to select some points which we mentioned in a previous article I published:

Bringing forth to discussion similar traditions (ahadith) or issues difficult to understand by ordinary people, then insisting on such an exposition, without providing a reasonable and acceptable explanation for it, is not acceptable, nor are its consequences commendable. This is not expected especially from people who are looked on to solve problems and to clarify what is ambiguous, especially when such traditions, or complex problems, are not presented before specialized thinkers but to simple-minded people. Among the latter are young and old folks, men and women, the learned and the ignorant. And all this is done through the general news media and in the open!
Exposing bringing about sensitive issues and putting forth questions to those who do not have the means to know what enables them to safely and correctly solve what is complex: Someone is doing so without providing sufficient answers, through all the means he has at his disposal. We try to avoid innocent people falling into a great and serious error. And all this is done without any concern about restricting the discussion to criticizing the idea without insulting, scandalizing or belittling anyone but safeguarding one’s dignity and honour in a scholarly, civilized and dignified way.

It is not fair to bring about such issues in the open then expect others to remain silent and not criticize them except behind closed doors. An expectation such as this is understood only as an order of silence, a forced order; rather, it is extortion. It confines the right of speech to only “his excellency” or “his holiness” and to nobody else.

No courtesies are to be paid when it comes to the issues of the religion and the creed. Nobody should expect to receive them, be he near in kin or a loved one, no matter what status he occupies or what role he plays, for the truth, and the religion, are above all considerations.
The issues of the religion and of the creed are not the monopoly of one particular party rather than another. They concern all people regardless of their status or [educational] level. Everyone has the right to show sensitivity towards a statement which undermines such issues, and this must be granted utmost attention, so that one may determine where he stands. Yet all of this should be done within the confines of moderation and in a scholarly, subjective, terse and responsible manner.

This is underscored when we get to know the following:

The issues relevant to the creed should not be followed by (blind) imitation; rather, each individual should seek a convincing and an acceptable evidence for them first and foremost. The issues relevant to the creed are not on par with those relevant to the fiqh wherein an ignorant person refers to a scholar in order to obtain his verdict based on general proofs which mandate imitation [taqlid].

People should not be prohibited from discussing such issues, nor is it appropriate to require them to blindly follow them, to imitate fathers and forefathers, this scholar or that. Also, this is not appropriate. In fact, their tardiness should not be taken advantage of, nor should their purity. These issues should not be presented to them in a way which is incomplete and out of balance, for this agrees with neither scholarly integrity nor with the Shari’a which ought to be observed.

People’s sensitivity to issues relevant to the religion and creed and their energetic and enthusiastic interest are all healthy signs and sound indications which ought to be encouraged and safeguarded. They should not be assaulted, nor should they be faced with serious accusations with the objective to suppress them and to put an end to them. They should be emphasized, safeguarded, properly directed in a straight and sound way, so that such a creed will become more firmly established and deeper in its effect on their conduct and stance, especially when they are faced with challenges.

Islamic branches of knowledge are numerous. They have vast and spacious inclusion, in addition to precision, in many detailed topics. There is no harm in a scholar taking his time to answer many questions about various branches of knowledge with which he is faced. He cannot answer all of them except if he were on the level of prophets or Imams. It is said, “May Allah have mercy on a man who knows his limits.”

If a responsible person has not finished his research and investigation of certain issues, nor has he studied them minutely and sufficiently in a way that enables him thereafter to present them to the people with precision and inclusion, he is not supposed to issue final verdicts in their regard, nor should he answer questions about them.

If he has to do it, he must confine himself to the limits of presentation and dissociation from responsibility, providing an excuse that he has not sufficiently studied and examined them. There is no harm if he is satisfied with whatever great scholars of the sect have agreed on, without paying attention to what this particular scholar or that has singled himself out, for exceptions cannot be followed while leaving aside what is famous and what is backed.

But when one comes out to tell whatever he reveals within himself or answers every question by casting doubts which provide for him an escape route[^3], misleading people into thinking that he is knowledgeable of all the details of issues, and that he raises questions about them out of knowledge, responsibility and deep thinking, although he may not have seen the text in the first place, let alone having studied or researched it…, this is not appropriate. Such a method is not acceptable. It is neither logical nor rational.

Nobody has the right to require people to restrict themselves to inquire about issues relevant only to the Prophet (S) and to the Imams (as) authenticated by criteria applied to narrators of hadith... This means that people should remain silent about traditions dealing with most issues and questions, be they theological, historical, or others. Should one who requires people to do so confine his statements to the particulars of issues about which authentic proofs have been narrated by the Infallible Ones (as), he will find himself forced to remain silent, to sit at home, because he finds only a few that he will exhaust during a few days or less than that.

We, however, say, and so does he, that proving an issue is not dependent on the Abundance of authentic traditions narrated by the Infallible Ones (as), for there may be other proofs which sometimes strengthen the degree of depending on them, such as the tradition being weak and it is well known that it was acted on and relied on, despite the presence before their eyes of authentic support, then they did not pay it any attention.

Also, if the text represents a decision from a reprobate admitting something which indicts him or contradicts his line, it is not correct to say that this person is reprobate, so his statement cannot be accepted. Thereupon, various proofs have to be examined in fiqh issues and in usul, creed, history, etc., by the specialized people who benefit from them in order to strengthen a text whose support is weak, or vice versa, according to sources and to the existence of proofs.

There is nothing easier for anyone to stand and cast doubts or deny what is already proven. There is nothing easier than running away from being committed to issues or from bearing responsibility. This is neither a practical proof nor does it indicate the universality of anything at all. A scholar who delves deeply into issues, the critic, the researcher…, is the one who exerts a serious effort to verify the origins, confirms and verifies the facts, asserting what is proven and discarding what is fabricated.
Attributing any statement to a particular sect of people, or to any sect at all, is right only when the statement is made by him/them and publicly declared by their prominent figures and scholars across the centuries and is what their views have agreed on and their hearts accepted. This is known by referring to their assemblies, books, creed’s texts…, and to their biographies.

But if someone, or a people belonging to a sect, becomes the exception to the rule with regard to some views, it is not right to attribute the exception to the entire sect, or to its faqihs or scholars; so, what would you say when the latter are the ones who reneged in their speeches from the recognized pioneer who verified the sect’s issues?!

So is the case if someone understands an issue incorrectly, unnaturally or out of the ordinary: It is not right to attribute it to others as a generalization. It is then that the operation of scandalizing him with glittering words, exaggerating and magnifying him, starts. The end result is holding the sect’s scholars in contempt and thinking lightly of their way of thinking without any justification. Then he provides the alternative which he prepared in advance with sweet words no matter how weak and meek his alternative may be.

Putting forth for ordinary people issues which require explanations in ambiguous ways, though it may to a certain extent facilitate for the person who does it the means to avoid the consequences of his dissertation, does not exempt one from the responsibility of ordinary people considering the idea as the whole truth and the view, which results from research and study and anything other than it..., as being wrong.

Yes, none of this exempts him from responsibility so long as everyone knows that people understand the issues in a simple way. They do not pay attention to words such as “perhaps,” “maybe,” “we may imagine,” “we could understand,” “we may be inspired,” “we have to study,” etc.

We appreciate the efforts of sincere workers and pray for them to achieve success. We thank all sincere brethren who exerted a great deal of effort to make this book a success, especially my Brother, the great ‘allama, Shaikh Ridwan Shararah. May Allah appreciate the effort of everyone, and may He protect them and enable all of us to be sound of view and sincere in action. He is our Master, and He is the One Who grants guidance to the straight course.

[^1]: __, Al-Safir newspaper of June 27, 1996, in an article by a professor.

[^2]: The original Arabic text of this book falls into two volumes. The total number of their pages exceeds one thounsand. I have preferred to put them together for the kind reader. – Tr.

[^3]: For example, he once asked about something which exists in a text, saying, “This is not ascertained,” or, “The authenticity of the narration is not known,” or, “There are traditions which prove that this is not true.”