Your Questions Answered (volume 4)

Q10.about Nabi Musa (a.s)

Was Hadrat Musa (a.s.) a real magician? Or did he just have some power given by God? A. He was not a magician In fact it is a blasphemy to couple the word "magician" with his sacred name. He was given power of miracles by Allah, by which he used to overcome the magicians.

I strongly advise you to study first the basic and elementary matters of religion so that you may know the essential beliefs and practices of your religion. You may enrol for our Islamic Correspondence Course, which is available on payment of US $.25.00

Q11.WHO WERE THE PARENTS OF HAZRAT MARYAM? DID SHE EVER MARRY?

Who were the parents of Hadhrat Maryam? Did she ever marry? A. The name of the father of Hadrat Maryam was 'Imran. Her mother's name is not known According to Islamic traditions, she did not marry anyone. Q12. DID ISA (a.s) MARRY?

Did Isa (a.s) marry? If yes, then how many children did he have? A. He did not marry at all.

Q13: A PROPHET "EATEN" BY AN ANIMAL!

Can a prophet be eaten away by an animal? How Nabi YUNUS (a s) was swallowed in a fish's stomach?

A. A prophet cannot be "eaten away" by an animal; and Nabi Yunus was not "eaten away". He was confined into the belly of a fish (or was it a whale?); was alive and was remembering Allah and glorifying His name. So, it was just like an abode for him. And finally, he was delivered from that abode. All these things are clearly mentioned in the Qur'an.

Q14. WAS THE HOLY PROPHET ILLITERATE?

Was our Prophet (s.a. w.) illiterate? That he never learned how to read and write? And was he spiritually illiterate too?

A. Holy Prophet (saw.) acquired his knowledge direct from Allah He was not taught by any human being. But he was the "City of Knowledge" and it is a blasphemy to associate the word "illiterate" to him. You may say that he was not taught by any man.

Q15.MARRIAGES OF THE HOLY PROPHET

How many times did Hadrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) marry, and what happened to his wives after his death?

A. Our Holy Prophet married 13 wives in all; 9 ware alive at the time of his death. I do not understand what you mean by saying "what happened to them after his death?" Also, you should write 'peace be upon him and his descendants". It is wrong not to mention his 'Al in Salawat.

Q16: AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY PROPHET AND IMAMS

Could you explain to us the three aspects of the caliphate, i.e. legislative, judicial and executive; and how are the Representatives of Allah split up amongst the prophet and Imams?

A. Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.) combined all the three aspects in his personality. The legislation prescribed by Allah was promulgated by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w); he was the final judicial authority; and the supreme Head of the Islamic Community. .

The Imams inherited all these functions from him except that they had no authority to change any law brought by the Holy Prophet (saw.); rather their function was to elaborate and interpret that law. So far as judicial and executive aspects are concerned, there was no difference between the Holy Prophet (saw.) and his 12 successors.

Q17. WHY 'ALI DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE KHILAFAT?

I now understand that you acknowledge Imam 'Ali(a.s) as the first khalifa/imam.To be frank (and I don't care what the others say), I feel that historically, and by many traditions, your claim is justified. Then why the leadership was not given to the man whom the prophet of Allah had nominated? And why 'Ali(a.s) tolerated and waited patiently instead of revolting? (Asked by a Sunni correspondent)

A. The answer cannot be given in a short letter. If you read the biography of Imam 'Ali (a.s.) you will easily understand why he did not feel like taking any action against his adversaries except to protest openly at every appropriate time. The situation at that time was such that a civil war in Madina would have meant the extinction of Islam in the whole of Arabia.

For example, if your child was abducted by someone who wanted to bring him up as his own son and you were sure that if you took any action against him he would kill the child, would you not wait for a suitable time for the return of the child instead of rushing headlong to that person and thus causing his death?

And can anyone say that because the circumstances compelled you to keep quit at that time, you lost the right of the custody of your child and the abductor became its true father?

There is a story in the Old Testament, which says that two women came to the Prophet Sulaiman (a,s,) "And the one woman said, O my Lord I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it.

And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear. And the other woman said. Nay; but the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. Then said the king. The one saith.

This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. And the king said. Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two and give half to the one, and half to the other.

Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: But the other said, her-it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.

Then the king answered and said. Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it; she is the mother thereof." (I Kings Ch, 3. verses 17-27).

(A similar case came up before 'Ali a.s., and he decided in the same way; finally he said "the solution of this case was revealed to Sulaiman (a.s.) and now I have decided it in the same way.") I think this episode sufficiently depicts the stand of 'Ali (a.s.) vis-a-vis his adversaries.

Q 18: ABOUT THOSE WHO WENT AGAINST ALI (A.S.):

We would like to know what the Imams have said about Abu Bakr, 'Umar and the Sahaba who maintained their claim to the caliphate. It is hard for us to reconcile the two assertions that the succesion of 'Ali was clearly, publicly and repeatedly announced; yet Abu Bakr, 'Umar, , 'Ayesha and their supporters, who went against that announcement, were not blameworthy. Could you, please, clarify this for us?

A. You have answered that question yourself. No Shi'a has ever said that those who usurped the caliphate were not blameworthy. In fact, "Tabarra" (keeping aloof) from the enemies of the Prophet and the Imams is one of the basic obligations of Shi'a.

Here is the translation of a part of a lecture of Amirul-Mu'minin 'Ali (a.s.) in which he describes the 3 "caliphs" "By Allah, the son of Abu Qahafa (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill.

The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. (Meaning that he was like a fountain head from which rivers of wisdom flow and nobody could aspire to rise to the heights of 'Ali's knowledge).

But I closed eyes to the (usurpation of) caliphate and turned my face away from it. Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations where-in the grown up are feebled and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). (But after considering over the pros and cones) I arrived at the conclusion that endurance thereon was wiser.

So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the caliphate to Ibn Khattab after himself. Then he quoted A'isha's verse:- "My days now are passed on the camel's back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir's brother Hayyan".

"It is strange that during life-time he wished to get rid of the caliphate but he straightened its way for the other after his death.No doubt these two shared its (caliphate's) udder strictly among themselves.

This one put the caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown.

Consequently, by Allah, people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation. Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of caliphate) to a body and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this selection board? (I had nothing common with any of its members).

Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered kin to these ones. But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high One of them (Talha or Sa'd) turned against me because of his hatred and the other (Abdul Rahman bin Auf) got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with bloated stomach between his dung and fodder.

With him his cousins also stood up swallowing Allah's wealth like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till the rope broke down, his (inglorious) action finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostate." (See the 3rd sermon of Nahjul-Balagha).

To understand the historical events alluded to in this sermon, see my booklet "Imamat" And it is narrated from Imam Musa Al-Kazim (as), in a long hadith, that five persons will receive the most maximum punishment in hell three from the previous Ummats, and two from this Ummat (community).

(Vide Bihar-ul-Anwar of 'Allamah Majlisi, (Vol. 3)) Imam Ja'far Sadiq (a.s.) said that there will be seven persons who will suffer extreme punishment: five from the previous Ummats, and "two from this Ummat, one of them more evil than the other; (they will be) in a coffin of glass under a cleavage in the rivers of Fire."

Q 19: COMMENT ON A FORGED HADITH (TRADITION)

Someone told me that a book called "Mishkat" says that our Holy Prophet said: "If there was to be a prophet after me it would have been "Umar-. "

A. This is unquestionably untrue. Ponder on these points-

When the Shi'as want to prove any thing against the Sunnis they do not quote Shi'a books or Shi'a traditions They quote references from the Sunni books. Therefore, if any Sunni wished to prove to US any virtue Of 'Umar, he should cite references from the Shi'a books. Is it not stark foolishness to quote a Sunni tradition against the Shi'as? Well, even the Hindus and the Christians could easily prove the 'truth' of their religion vis-a-vis Islam if they were allowed to quote from their own books.
Even the Sunnis believe that the Prophets must be Ma'sum (infallible) untainted with kufr (infidelity) throughout their lives i.e. even before being invested with prophethoodSee, for example, "Mawaqif" of Qadi 'Izzududdin, and "Sham-e- Mawaqif" of Sharif Jurjani. Also refer to "Fiqh-e-Akbar" of Imam Abu Hanifa and its 'Sharh' by Mulla 'Ali Qari. Now 'Umar was a "Mushrik" (idol-worshipper) for at least 40 years. How could a has-been idol worshipper be a "potential prophet"?
Prophets must be top-most in divine knowledge and embellished with other virtues. 'Umar blundered more than 100 times in his judgments and rulings, so much so that once a woman silenced him in an open gathering and refuted his ruling by quoting an 'aya of the Qur'an upon which he was constrained to (Every person is more knowledgeable in religion than 'Umar even the women who sit in seclusion). Is this the qualification of a potential prophet?
In the "Sanad" (chain of tradition of this alleged hadith) there is the name of one Musharrih about whom Ibn Jawzi (a well-known Sunni authority on Hadith and Religion) has said:

"Ibn Habban has said that the writings/books of Musharrih became topsyturvy; therefore quoting him in proof is invalid" When the Sunni scholars themselves say that one of the narrators of this 'tradition' was unreliable and confusion was worse confounded in his books how do they expect the Shi'as to believe in such a spurious "hadith"?