Negating the second Shia interpretation
As far as the second interpretation is concerned (that the Qur’an has been safeguarded with the alleged Imam al Mahdi in the cave Surra man Ra’a), firstly the entire legend of Imam al Mahdi taking refuge in a cave is a fairy tale. When the Qur’an has been deemed unreliable, despite the infinite number of narrators reporting it, then what reliability can be placed on a narration reported by a few deceitful individuals, especially when it is utterly illogical. No sane person will believe in such nonsense. In addition, those narrations which mention this fairy tale, do so in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult to believe that ‘Imam al Mahdi’ had even memorised the Qur’an.
This duty belongs to the Ahlus Sunnah, if you accept that Imam al Mahdi has a similitude to the Ahlus Sunnah, then based upon the narration:
من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم
Whoever bears a similarity to a nation is of that nation.[19]
Yes, it is possible then, that he has memorised the Qur’an.
Imam al Mahdi concealing the Qur’an in this manner so that it may not fall under the gaze of the followers of the third khalifah Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, may be considered reasonable but then we ask those of understanding as to how this is different from the first interpretation as then it will be preserved in the cave Surra man Ra’a in the same way as it is preserved in the Lawh al Mahfuz. In that case, according to the fifth point mentioned above, this (Imam al Mahdi preserving the Qur’an in the cave as the Shia believe) will not fulfil the promise of safe-guarding the Qur’an. It will only be deemed correct to refer to the Qur’an as a “Reminder” when the Ummah reads and teaches it. Who goes to the cave Surra man Ra’a? Who derives benefit from it? If there is a promise to protect the Qur’an then it is to protect this Qur’an before us, while it is in our midst. Furthermore, if the Qur’an of Imam al Mahdi is in accordance with this Qur’an then only is it the true Qur’an otherwise the Qur’an of the ‘Imam’ himself will be a forgery. In essence, ascribing such nonsense to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is an attempt to undermine the teachings of Islam.
It is indeed foolish to believe that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promised to protect the Qur’an so that the ummah of Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would have no difficulty in determining the laws of Shari’ah tomorrow and keep the flame of Islam burning until the Day of Qiyamah but then, unfortunately, this plan was thwarted (Allah forbid). The implication of this claim that the Qur’an is safe-guarded in the cave Surra man Ra’a is that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala could not foresee this. Imagine what this would lead a non-Muslim to think about Islam.
This opens the doors of assault on Islam
We hope that no Shia will ever mention this belief to any Jew or Christian, if they mention it to us then we would keep it silent to save ourselves from disgrace. However, if the Jews were to be the first to hear such a thing then they would be able to say that their Tawrah has also been preserved in the Lawh al Mahfuz.
Apart from this, the verse of Surah al Ahqaf informs us that the Jinn had the actual Tawrah in their possession and they did not alter it like man because then they would not have said:
قَالُوْا يَا قَوْمَنَا إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا كِتَابًا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مُوْسَىٰ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ يَهْدِيْ إِلَى الْحَقِّ وَإِلَىٰ طَرِيْقٍ مُّسْتَقِيْمٍ
They said, “O our people, indeed we have heard a [recited] Book revealed after Moses confirming what was before it which guides to the truth and to a straight path.[20]
The conviction they had of the Qur’an affirming what was said in the Tawrah could have only been attained if they had the actual Tawrah in their possession or if the Qur’an was affirming what the forged Tawrah contained. The second possibility (that the Qur’an was affirming what the forged Tawrah contained) is considered incorrect by the Shia as well because the recitation the Jinn heard was directly from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not from Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu or any other.
However, if they do not fear criticism of the Jews and consider a portion of the Tawrah to still be authentic, believing only that portion has not been altered, just as the Shia believe that only Surah al Fatihah and Surah al Ikhlas have not been altered, and then boastfully say that our Qur’an is preserved in the cave, Surra man Ra’a, where is your Tawrah preserved, or they consider the possibility that the Jinn only heard those verses of the Qur’an which corresponds with that portion of the Tawrah that is authentic, and it is only on account of this correspondence that the Jinn deemed the Qur’an to be affirming what the Tawrah contains; then only can the Tawrah be considered altered and the Qur’an preserved in the cave, Surra man Ra’a, which makes it superior to the Tawrah. In such a case they will not have to bow their heads in shame before the Jews but still even this little form of superiority will be hard to prove.
If the Jews overlook this, the Christians will not
Even if they are victorious over the Jews in this argument, how will they face the Christians because Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam — the hafiz of the Injil — is alive in the heavens (both Shia and Sunni agree on this). The Imam in the cave still has to fear that the followers of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu might chance upon his hiding place and steal the Qur’an from him or Allah forbid, even murder him. This will threaten his entire reason for concealment. Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam on the other hand is living in the fourth heaven with absolutely no worry whatsoever.
The only possibility whereby the Shia will be able to retain supremacy will be by them telling the Christians that firstly it is not proven that Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam was a hafiz of the Injil (even though the same can be said regarding the Imam more so since the Injil was revealed to Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam and it would be far-fetched to then believe that he was not a hafiz of it, as opposed to the Imam, who was not the one it was directly revealed to. In addition, memorising the Qur’an makes him similar to the Ahlus Sunnah whereas there is no similarity in memorising the Injil) and secondly, we also believe that Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam will descend into the world once again but when he does, his memorisation of the Injil will be to no avail because it has been abrogated as opposed to the Imam, whose memorisation of the Qur’an will be of use to him after he makes his appearance. The Shia will finally have the actual Qur’an in their hands after having to rely on the pages of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu all these years, centuries of supplications will finally be accepted.
However, this victory over the Christians will only be possible if the Shia accept our beliefs (that the Qur’an is unaltered) and they not only distance themselves from beliefs such as the Imams having the authority to declare what is lawful and what is unlawful, etc. but also entirely remove narrations such as these from their books:
عن محمد بن سنان عن ابى جعفر قال كنت عنده فاجريت اختلاف الشيعة فقال يا محمد ان الله تعالى لم يزل متفردا بالوحدانية ثم خلق محمدا و عليا و فاطمة و الحسن و الحسين فمكثوا الف دهرا فخلق الاشياء و اشهدهم خلقها و اجرى طاعتهم عليها و فوض امرهم اليهم يحلون ما يشاؤن و يحرمون ما يشاؤن
Muhammad bin Sinan narrates: “I was in the company of Imam al Baqir and I asked him about the reason for the many differences amongst the Shia.” He replied: “O Muhammad! Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was always alone until he created Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He then waited for a thousand years and then created everything else. He gathered all creation before them (these five) and made obeying them incumbent on creation and He then handed over authority of the affairs of creation to them. They make lawful whatever they desire and make unlawful whatever they desire.”
According to this narration, the differences amongst the Shia is on account of one of the five ruling something to be lawful and another ruling it to be unlawful, with some following one over the other. The second narration is also from Al Kulayni, and they need to absolve themselves from it as well.
عن محمد بن الحسن الميثمى عن ابى عبد الله قال سمعته يقول ان الله ادب رسوله حتى قومه على ما اراد ثم فوض اليه دينه فقال ما اتاكم الرسول فخذوه و ما نهكم عنه فانتهوا فما فوضه الله تعالى الى رسوله فقد فوضه الينا
Muhammad bin Hassan al Maythami narrates that he heard Imam Jafar rahimahu Llah say: “Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala taught his Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam etiquette until He reformed him as He so desired. He then handed over the authority of His din to him and said:
Whatever the Messenger grants you, hold firmly to it and whatever he prohibits you from, abstain from it.
So whatever authority was handed over to The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he handed over to us.”
The first narration only mentions the authority being handed over to the five (the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum) whereas the second indicates that others also have been granted the same authority, since it refers to the same.
A baseless interpretation to a baseless narration
It is possible that some Shia may claim that the handing over of authority to decree halal and haram as deemed fit, described in this narration, actually refers to the usage of ijtihad (independent reasoning), which is considered an accepted practice by the Ahlus Sunnah as well. So now if the Shia have adopted the ijtihad of these few infallibles what is the issue?
Or they may say: Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala granted them unique abilities and aptitude, with which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala ordered them to assess matters and decree the ruling according to their understanding, so what is the problem?
However, any person of intellect will understand that this interpretation is impossible with the first narration and also it opposes the Shia religion itself to accuse the Imams of performing ‘ijtihad’, whereas they consider the decrees of the Imams to be divine revelation.
As for them being granted unique understanding, we might accept this but the Shia will not; let alone the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, all the sects of the Shia believe that the Imams have the authority to change the laws of Shari’ah. If they were granted unique abilities with which to extract rulings, then what is the meaning of changing rulings. The capability should conform to their ability; extract rulings, yes, but why change rulings. Either way these interpretations have no basis.
Even if these replies were to be left aside then too this narration will have no relevance because the Qur’an states, it is:
تِبْيَانًا لِّكُلِّ شَيْءٍ
Clarification for all things[21]
This means that the Qur’an explains everything (all laws of Shari’ah), we might not understand it, but others do, especially the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So, when the Qur’an explains everything, what need is there to hand over authority of din? All one can do, even the Imams, is commentate on the Qur’an but not say a word of your own opinion.
Handing over authority to others abrogates the Qur’an
Our safety lies in erasing these narrations entirely, then only will we be able to save face before the Jews and Christians. If we fail to do so then they will point fingers at us saying that the Injil might have been abrogated by the Qur’an but not all of its laws were abrogated; many aspects pertaining to character as well as prohibitions and permissions were still maintained, and as far as beliefs are concerned then according to the word of the Muslims themselves there is no difference. The same beliefs have continued from Nabi Adam ‘alayh al Salam to this very day. It is mentioned in Surah al Ma’idah:
وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ
And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book [i.e., the Qur’an] in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture[22]
They would then say, your Qur’an is the same as our divine book because your Imams changed many laws as they saw fit. The first narration makes this extremely clear as Imam al Baqir indicated that this is the reason for the differences amongst the Shia. So even if Imam al Mahdi does have the actual Qur’an with him it makes no difference as those laws have been changed. Instead, another Qur’an should be made. If you fail to do so then just as you believe that Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam will descend in the last era and despite being a hafiz of the Injil it will not avail him, on account of it being abrogated; so too it is possible that when your Imam finally emerges, intending to practice upon the laws established by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it will not avail him as it has been abrogated as well.
The laws which the Shia Imam al Mahdi will enact
As for the possibility of (the Shia) Imam al Mahdi ruling in accordance with the laws passed by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, this has been refuted by a narration reported by Muhammad ibn Babawayh al Qummi on the authority of Imam Jafar:
عن ابى عبد الله انه قال ان الله تعالى اخى بين الارواح فى الازل قبل ان يخلق الاجسام بالف عام فاذا قام قائم اهل البيت ورث الاخ من الذين اخا بينهما فى الازل و لم يورث الاخ من الولادة
Imam Jafar has reported to have said: “Verily Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created bonds of brotherhood between the souls one thousand years before creating man, When the al Qa’im (al Mahdi) of the Ahlul Bayt will appear, the brother with whom bonds of brotherhood was formed before creation will be the one who inherits and not one who is brother by birth.”
This narration clearly indicates that Imam al Mahdi will not act in accordance with the laws of the Qur’an and the law that states that a blood brother inherits will be abolished. This narration also informs us that the law of a blood brother inheriting as mentioned in Surah al Nisa is no addition of the khalifah ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu but is the direct order of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala because then why would its nullification be postponed until the emergence of the al Qa’im?
In short, until the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah do not refute the belief that their Imam al Mahdi has the authority to abrogate the laws of Shari’ah, they will not be able to present their case of the Qur’an being safe-guarded before the Christians as is clear from the verse:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[23]
Affirming the belief of Khatm-e Nubuwwah
The benefit of refuting these beliefs is not only restricted to victory over the Jews and Christians but it corrects and affirms the belief in Khatm-e Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) mentioned in Surah al Ahzab. If they fail to do so then the reproach upon the Jews will be directed to them as well:
أَفَتُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُوْنَ بِبَعْضٍ
So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?[24]
The reason for this is that even the Prophets were not allowed to abrogate laws of Shari’ah and prescribe others of their own accord. All of the Prophets of the Bani Isra’il, from Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam until Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam, all acted upon the Tawrah. In addition, neither Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam nor Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam were granted the authority to decree the laws of din as they saw fit. Whatever they decreed, they did so on the instruction of Allah. Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam aside, even the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not given such authority as is stated in Surah al An’am:
قُل لَّا أَجِدُ فِيْ مَا أُوْحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُوْنَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوْحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنْزِيْرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَّلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُوْرٌ رَّحِيْمٌ
Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.”[25]
This verse is explicit that the right to declare items halal and haram has not been given to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the basis on which halal and haram is declared is wahi (revelation). It is mentioned in another verse:
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
Legislation is not but for Allah.[26]
Then too if we were to accept (hypothetically) that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had indeed handed over the authority to the ummah then our Imams are no less than theirs. It is for the propagation of these laws that Prophets and Rusul were sent:
يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُوْلُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَّبِّكَ
O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord.[27]
In this manner one will be saved from the criticisms of the Jews and Christians, and one’s own iman will be rectified.
Ibn Babawayh was also forced to accept the truth
Perhaps this is what Sheikh al Saduq, i.e. Ibn Babawayh, understood and absolved himself entirely from such beliefs in his book, Al I’tiqadat, and according to me earned his title of Saduq. However, when he did so, he attempted to absolve all of the Shia as well saying:
من نسب الينا انا نقول انه اكثر من ذالك فهو كاذب
Whoever claims that we have said that the Qur’an contains more verses than it does, he is a liar.
He intended by this statement to prove the Ahlus Sunnah to be liars but Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is truthful and always allows the truth to avail. Along came al Kulayni and proved al Saduq to be a liar, by reporting that the Qur’an contained seventeen thousand verses as has already been discussed. How much more injustice of the Shia must we discuss in this regard? I have not seen any intelligent scholar who has interpreted this verse:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[28]
To mean anything else but the Qur’an is protected from all alterations and changes, whether it be from the first, second or third khalifah.
The virtue of the Ahlus Sunnah
If this verse is studied with a perceptive eye, then a great virtue of the Ahlus Sunnah can be seen. The details of this are that whenever any task is carried out under another or by their instruction then even though someone else may carry out the task, it will always be ascribed to the principal, director, or governor. For example, if the president were to appoint a security force or regiment to protect the public treasury and each of them were to take turns guarding it, while he is sound asleep, then this action will still be attributed to the president since he is the one who ordered them to carry out this task.
Similarly, the Ahlus Sunnah in accordance with the order of Allah have stood guard over this treasure and since they could not protect it suitably when it was on paper, they took the liberty of engraving it on their hearts as well. In other words, they dedicated their lives to its protection, preventing Shaitan and the irreligious from ever carrying out their evil intentions. A thief will always accuse the guard of dishonesty, so here too the Shia instead of showing appreciation to the Ahlus Sunnah have opted to accuse us of dishonesty.
All virtues erased all that remains is sin
If the Ahlus Sunnah were to have asked the Shia for some recompense for having fulfilled this duty then perhaps they would have the right to make such an accusation.
Nevertheless, wherever we look in the world, we see the Ahlus Sunnah as guardians of the Qur’an, some towns having more than five hundred huffaz, but since this is all in accordance with the order of Allah, it should not be attributed to the Ahlus Sunnah but to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. The Ahlus Sunnah should be regarded as the special servants of Allah. This is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala attributed this protection to himself:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[29]
The Shia are akin to those disobedient to the government, such as cut-throats and thieves, because they are enemies of the guardians of the Book of Allah, which is more valuable than any treasury, and the enemies of those who guard the state treasury are none other than thieves and cut-throats.
In summary the verse:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[30]
Also calls out loudly that the Ahlus Sunnah are on the truth and the Shia on falsehood, but ears are necessary in order to listen and the following verses fits them perfectly:
خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوْبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing.[31]
Nonetheless, we should not become negligent in trying to make them understand. Perhaps just as Sheikh al Saduq has accepted one aspect, ‘Ammar ‘Ali and the other Shia may also do the same. However, since it is very difficult for a radical person to accept what you say the first time around, regardless of how clear and convincing your argument might be, it is possible that a Shia might say after reading this discourse that he believes the Qur’an to be true and unchanged in any way but where does it say that we have to accept Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu also. This is why I present the next verse:
إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوْهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِيْ الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُوْلُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا
If you do not aid him [i.e., the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] – Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he [i.e., Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed, Allah is with us.” [32]
Ponder over this verse with an open-mind and put aside your pride, does this verse pull you towards the Ahlus Sunnah or towards the home of the Shia? At this juncture a saying of Mirza Kazim ‘Ali al Lucknowi comes to mind, who was a senior Shia scholar and also respected by Dildar ‘Ali as well. The summary of his statement is:
People can say what they like about whoever they want but whoever will speak ill of the first Khalifah, then even according to me he is a kafir.
A person from the gathering objected saying: “What are you saying, the beliefs of our religion contradict this.” He replied:
I am not saying this, Allah is saying it. There is no difference between the word sahib and Sahabi, both have the same meaning and here Allah is bearing testimony to the first khalifah being a Sahabi because the word sahib, which appears in this verse, according to both Sunni and Shia refers to Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Glory be to Allah! This is how fair-minded people are, like Mirza Kazim ‘Ali, and he was no simpleton; the Shia themselves held him in high esteem. There is scarcely a Shia who does not know of him and follow him. He is not wrong in his deduction as well, whichever way you look at this verse, there is no room for any other interpretation.
Commentary of the verse in Surah Tawbah
The explanation of all of this is that the words “صاحبه” (companion) that appears in this verse has the same meaning as Sahabi in Arabic. In addition, the words (La Tahzan) “Do not grieve”, prove that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a lover and devotee of The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well as a true sincere Muʼmin. The reason being that telling him not to grieve would have no meaning if he was not, because then he would have been rejoicing at that time as (according to the Shia belief) his enemy, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was about to be captured. There would have been no need to even shout, the slightest flinch would have given them away.
Also understand that the fear Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had was not for his own life but only for the well-being of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, fearing what they might do if they discovered the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It was on this that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam consoled him saying: “Do not grieve; indeed, Allah is with us.”
The meaning of grief
A few prejudiced individuals have said that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not fearful for the life of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he was fearful for his own. Such claims need to be thought out carefully because it would mean that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is unfamiliar with the prose of the Arabic language and unacquainted with the eloquence of the Arabic language. It would render the miracle of the eloquence of the Qur’an into murmurings of the smitten.
The details of this is that any person who knows Arabic will be aware that the word “حزن” (grief) is used in times of sadness, when parting with a beloved or in a time of hopelessness, whereas when one fears for his life then the word “خوف” (fear) is used. There is no book more eloquent and articulate as the Qur’an. When Nabi Musa ’alayh al Salam climbed atop Mount Tur and Allah asked him what is in your hand, he replied that it was his staff, with which he walks, leans on, and herds his sheep. He was then ordered to throw it down and when he did, it turned into a huge serpent. Nabi Musa ’alayh al Salam turned and ran, without looking back, on which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said:
إِنِّيْ لَا يَخَافُ لَدَيَّ الْمُرْسَلُوْنَ
Indeed, in My presence the messengers do not fear.[33]
This makes it clear that Nabi Musa ’alayh al Salam feared for his life when he saw the serpent, which is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said: “Fear not” and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not say: “Do not grieve” at this juncture. Similarly, when he un intentionally killed the Qibti, he fled fearing for his life, which is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said:
فَخَرَجَ مِنْهَا خَائِفًا
So he left it, fearful.[34]
Aside from these verses, the word “خوف” (fear) was used many times in the Qur’an, whenever one feared for his own life. Wherever there was sadness then the word “حزن” (grief) was used. In Surah Yusuf where the sadness of Nabi Yaqub ’alayh al Salam is mentioned on his separation from Nabi Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam, as well as his weeping continuously, which resulted in his family saying that you will weep for Yusuf ’alayh al Salam until you will also perish, he replied:
قَالَ إِنَّمَا أَشْكُوْ بَثِّيْ وَحُزْنِيْ إِلَى اللَّهِ
He said, “I only complain of my suffering and my grief to Allah.”[35]
In fact, there are many verses which prove that “حزن” (grief) and “خوف” (fear) have different meanings and one is not used in place of the other.
تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَیْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ اَلَّا تَخَافُوْا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوْا
The angels will descend upon them, [saying], “Do not fear and do not grieve.”[36]
In this verse both words were used, if they had the same meaning then what was the purpose of mentioning it twice? The truth is that fear and grief are two separate things; fear is used for something that is still going to occur and grief is used when the desire of the heart is lost. The opposite of grief is happiness and the opposite of fear is calm. I feel ashamed of having to explain the difference of grief, happiness, fear, and calm which are such simple things to understand. There is nothing complicated in it at all. What can a person do if someone fails to understand the difference? Nevertheless, it is possible that these prejudiced individuals still have not understood, so I will attempt once again. When a person close to you passes away, then the feeling you experience is called grief and not fear. However, when there is a possibility of you being killed, then the feeling you experience is called fear and this is not called grief. If your child climbs on the roof and is about to jump, then you experience fear, this is not called grief. So, in short, grief is the feeling you experience in times of difficulty and fear is the feeling you experience on the possibility of harm befalling you or one you love. They cannot be used in place of each other
The understanding of the Shia
In a way they are also truthful as they have a rule of understanding things the other way around. For example, ‘Ammar ‘Ali understood falsehood to mean truth, as we have already explained. All of the Shia understand protectors to mean thieves, so if here too they were to do the same then the Ahlus Sunnah should not complain but rather rejoice because agreement has been reached regarding the meaning, the difference remains in the terminology.
The summary of this is that truth in the terminology of the Shia is called falsehood, protector is thief and grief is called fear. However, just as a Hindu and an Englishman when in a gathering of Muslims, hears one calling another “Baba”, then in accordance with their terminology; the Englishman will think it to mean child and the Hindu will think it to mean grandfather, here too if the Shia understands “Grieve not” to mean “Do not fear” then it is no fault of theirs, it is incumbent on the Ahlus Sunnah to speak to them in their terminology. Is it not stated in hadith:
كلموا الناس على قدر عقولهم
Speak to people according to their mental capacity.[37]
Even if we were to consider “Grieve not” to mean “Fear not”, as the Shia do, then too it does not harm us, as then “O Abu Bakr! Do not fear!” would mean that he did fear for his life because the disbelievers hated him on account of him being a Muslim and having iman. If this were not so then what why would the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam comfort him? That too by saying: “Allah is with us!” Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala only assists and aids — he is only “with” — the believers:
وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ
Allah is with the believers. [38]
أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِيْنَ
Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].[39]
إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الَّذِيْنَ اتَّقَوْا وَّالَّذِيْنَ هُم مُّحْسِنُوْنَ
Indeed, Allah is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good.[40]
The Qur’an is filled with such verses, the summary of which is that Allah is with those who are pure-hearted and nowhere in the Qur’an will you ever find Allah saying that he is with the disbelievers, the evil-doers, or the hypocrites.
The true meaning of Allah being “with” a person
If any person were to say that Allah is with everybody, whether a believer or disbeliever, as it is mentioned in the Noble Qur’an:
أَلَا إِنَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُّحِيْطٌ
Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.[41]
Therefore, since Allah encompasses everything, it necessarily means that Allah is with everything.
The answer to this would be as follows, considering one can be with another in two ways:
The first is when two people are in one place at the same time. Here they are only with each other physically though they both might abhor each other. An example of this would be a parrot living in the same cage with a crow.
The second is where one is in the heart of the other. For example, if a king were to say to a destitute person, who is disliked by others: “Fear not, for we are with you.” The meaning of this statement is simply that your thought will be in our minds and your concern will occupy us such that we will assist you when required.
In the second instance, it is not necessary for the poor person and the king to be in the same place. He might not be with him physically but his assistance is definitely with him.
Therefore, in the verse:
أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِيْنَ
Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].[42]
As well as the other verses mentioned above, the second meaning will be implied, as is known to all. If this were not the case, then what sort of praise would this be for the pious and how will it console them? So too in the verse under discussion, it was only mentioned with the purpose of consoling and to re-enforce the promise of assistance made above.
The verse proves that assistance descended upon Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well
If one were to object further and claim that the verse above establishes that divine assistance descended upon the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not upon Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, we would reply that this is known to all and sundry that the humiliation and disgrace of a slave is considered a humiliation and disgrace upon his master. When a person harms the servants and workers of the British then why do they take it so personally that they call to arms, spilling the blood of thousands? Furthermore, we witnessed during the riots that whoever protected the government officials were considered to be loyal subjects of the government. Thus, the assistance of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu falls under the assistance rendered to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When we were informed of this assistance, we were told:
فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللّٰهُ
Allah has already aided him.
However, when the assistance arrived, it arrived for both because when The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu about the assistance of Allah, he did so in the following manner:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
In other words, when informing us about this incident, Allah only mentioned the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and said: “Allah has already aided him”, however, when Allah provided the assistance, He assisted both the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is for this reason that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu about Allah’s assistance in by saying, “Indeed, Allah is with us”.
A single word was used “مَعَنَا” (with us) and they were not mentioned separately: “مَعِى” and “مَعَكَ” (it was not said, Allah is with me and Allah is with you), which makes it apparent that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was with Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the same manner as he was with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
So, based on this we learn that the Shia have unwittingly agreed with us in the fact that just as Allah was with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in terms of help, concern, love and assistance, so too was He with Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
In addition, the wording:
ثَانِیَ اثْنَیْنِ
As one of two
Indicates that The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not alone at the time, but another was with him, namely Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Furthermore, it is the maf’ul (passive participle) of the verb preceding it:
اِلَّا تَنْصُرُوْهُ
If you do not aid the Prophet.
Which proves beyond all doubt that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was also included in the divine assistance.
If the Shia were to then argue that the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
is in actual fact affixed to the sentence:
اِذْ اَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا
When those who disbelieved had driven him out.
and is in fact its maf’ul (passive participle), rendering its meaning to be that at the time, when the disbelievers of Makkah drove the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam out of Makkah, he was not alone, rather his acquaintance was with him. In this manner it will have no connection with the divine assistance. The divine assistance would only apply if it had been affixed to:
فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللّٰهُ
Allah has already aided him.
To this rhetoric, we give the following answer: if this is the meaning of this verse then it is exactly what we desired. As in this case it would mean that the Shia too have learnt that the kuffar had the same enmity for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as they had for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
If anyone were to say that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not driven out by the kuffar but rather it was the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who asked him to accompany him then we ask the Shia to answer this, as this meaning was only expounded by us on account of them. If they were to have asked us its meaning in the first place, then we would have related it to them. In addition, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not driven out according to the literal meaning of the word, whereby they dragged him along and expelled him.
The actual course of events
The actual course of events was that the disbelievers had gathered at Dar al Nadwah, which was the courtyard in the home of Abu Jahl, at that time situated next to the Ka’bah, where the Hanafi Musallah was later built and today forms part of the Masjid al Haram. It was here where they consulted with each other as to what course of action they should adopt with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; should they imprison him; or was killing him more appropriate or perhaps even to exile him. Allah informed his beloved about their plans and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam took Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu with him as his companion and they set out for the Cave of Thawr, and after acquiring the necessary provisions they set off for Madinah three days later. This incident is briefly made reference to in Surah al Anfal:
وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا لِيُثْبِتُوْكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوْكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوْكَ ۚ وَيَمْكُرُوْنَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ ۖ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِيْنَ
And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.[43]
Ponder over this incident! You will come to the conclusion that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not physically thrown out of his homeland. If one were to argue that constantly fearing exile is tantamount to exile itself, then we ask: what peace did Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu enjoy from the kuffar? In fact, before this event they had already attempted to exile him had it not been for the intercession of Ibn Daghinah who warded them off. These narrations can be found in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Furthermore, there is nothing illogical about things transpiring in this particular manner as the manner in which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala makes mention of this in the Noble Qur’an:
إِذْ يَقُوْلُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا
He said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed, Allah is with us.”[44]
Informs us that the disbelievers hated Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well; if not then why would the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam console him and why would Allah be with him and then too in the same manner that He was with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
After listening to this discussion, we are entirely convinced that the Shia will never mention that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam only took Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu along so that he will be unable to inform the disbelievers of his whereabouts. This verse has ripped to shreds the entire basis of this possibility such that even if they were to labour until the end of days, they will never be able to construct it again.
Furthermore, the beloved messenger; the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah forbid, was not lacking in intelligence but rather his intelligence was legendary; did he not perceive the terrible outcome of informing Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu of his plans and instead rather keep him in the dark from the outset and not tell him: “I am going to take refuge in the Cave of Thawr.”
Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not an imam of the Shia, who was blessed with the knowledge of all that has passed and what will come to pass, such that he would have known of the plans of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam whether he informed him of it or not. Furthermore, taqiyyah (dissimulation) would be most necessary in this circumstance and according to the Shia, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam taking refuge in the cave is also a form of taqiyyah, the details of which will be discussed later. Nevertheless, according to the Shia paradigm, taqiyyah is compulsory in such instances and to lie in such a circumstance is not only permissible, but rather essential. Instead, they claim that the praises which the illustrious Imams adorned the three Khalifas with, as well as the other Sahabah, was in actual fact taqiyyah. Allah forbid! The actions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam negate any possibility of such deceit, as then what need was there to take Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu along with him to the Cave of Thawr. If he were to have gone on his own then he would have had no fear, but by taking him along the very fear because of which he was taking him along would multiply. What was there to prevent him from yelling out and giving away their position? This would then be a perfect example of the saying:
To avoid the rain, he stood beneath the tap
To safe himself from the sun, he jumped into the fire
Thus, if this was the wisdom of taking Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu along then this was extremely unwise indeed.
The involuntary rectification to the truth
This is the reason why Mullah ‘Abdullah al Mashadi was forced to write in Ithar al Haqq that this possibility is indeed far-fetched. However, this is akin to the parable of the Hindu pundit, who denounced Hinduism after seventy-years but did not have the courage to announce it publicly out of fear for his own status.
Now listen to what I have to say, the statement of Mullah ‘Abdullah al Mashadi is absolutely correct and if it is on account of this that he has named his book Ithar al Haqq (declaration of the truth) then it has earned its title. We too are not afraid to accept this, even if he may be of the Shia faith. The problem however, is that despite Mullah ‘Abdullah al Mashadi being a recognised leader of the Shia, by the Shia scholars and common masses alike, they are not prepared to accept his word. Instead, they all claim: “What is astonishing about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam taking Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu along on this journey? He had taken him with only because he had given his daughter to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in marriage and he embraced Islam prior to many others, spending a great deal of his time in the service of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” The possibility of the Shia reforming is minimal but in fact it is highly possible that they will dissociate themselves from this scholar instead.
The true events of hijrah
Whether a person accepts or does not accept, the heart testifies, whether Ahlus Sunnah or Shia, that the only reason why Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was taken along on this journey was because the kuffar understood him to be the adviser, aide, and supporter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They also knew him to be the close friend and beloved of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and why should they not? Ahlus Sunnah or Shia, none are ignorant of the fact that it was Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu who suffered alongside the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at the hands of the kuffar, who defended the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, spent his wealth on him, and endured great difficulty. He liberated Bilal radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the shackles of the disbelievers. Similarly, he sacrificed his entire family for the pleasure of Allah and His messenger.
This is why the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was convinced that the kuffar bore the same hatred for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as they bore for him and the very same punishment, they had planned for him; they had planned for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He had challenged many of the kuffar and repeatedly informed them that the din of Islam is the true din, so abandon your worship of these idols. If success is what you seek then follow the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was convinced that if he were to leave Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu behind then the kuffar would most definitely execute him.
Without a doubt, if ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu were to be left behind then there would be no room for concern as the kuffar would not dare quarrel with him on account of the kuffar still having some form of regard for him, the most significant point of which would be that he was the maternal nephew of their leader, Abu Jahl, whereas the other Sahabah had no such privilege. Most importantly ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was capable of defending himself.
Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the other hand was a thorn in the side of the disbelievers and they would writhe in anger at the mere sight of him. If he were to be killed, then a great stalwart of iman and Islam would be lost. If he were to be killed then such a companion would be lost whose compassion and sincerity was exemplary, such sincerity and love that it would leave an indelible mark on the heart, influencing the actions of others.
Moreover such a dangerous journey cannot be undertaken without a companion and the companion should be such that he has no concern for his own life, his familial love should not supersede his love for Allah and His messenger, he should be experienced in both summer and winter weather patterns, a seasoned traveller, intelligent, wise to the ways of the world, possessing great courage, of high disposition, forthright, one whose trustworthiness has been tested time and again, devout, one for whom the speech stored in the chambers of the heart is opened, a pure hearted soul, and one in whose company, perplexity, strangeness and anxiety all dissipate. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saw all these qualities only in Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and this is the reason why he went to his house in the afternoon, arranged all travel plans with him after which both arrived at the Cave of Thawr. ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the son of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, acted as a spy for them and related all information he could glean from the disbelievers to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his father.
Responding to the Shia perception
If the family of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu bore any enmity to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then would such arrangements have been possible? If we were to hypothetically accept that this conspiracy was possible then what better opportunity could he have had to actualize his ‘enmity’ and fulfil his wishes by handing over the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to the disbelievers? The Shia should study their own books and inform me if I have been false in relating this incident. If any difference is found, then he is free to do as he pleases. A fair-minded person will be left with no other alternative but to acknowledge the fact that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam taking Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu along with him as his companion on hijrah (migration) is such a great virtue that it cannot be equalled by any other, such that even ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu sleeping in the bed of the Prophet cannot equal it.
All would have probably seen, during times of unrest, that when warrants of arrest are issued for the perpetrators, the others who reside in the house are not arrested. On the contrary, whoever is seen as his cohorts or accomplices are regarded to be equally guilty as the perpetrator himself.
It is of considerable regret that the testimony of Allah and his messenger in favour of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not accepted and then too only because they testify to his iman. If you do not accept the word of Allah, then what will you accept? This is when you invent various illogical interpretations and are willing to believe the most far-fetched hypothesis such that if it is compared with what the Qur’an truly says then not even an atom of what the Qur’an says can be found in it.
The fair-minded interpretation of the verse
We have no doubt that the Shia understand this verse to have the very same meaning as we have expounded; namely that if Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was distressed at the time, then it was only because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was defenceless and at the mercy of the kuffar at that time and he thought to himself: “What can I possibly do alone against these enemies, who will discover us with a simple glance towards their feet.”
However, such levels of helplessness and incapacity warrants the assistance of Allah, as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا اسْتَيْأَسَ الرُّسُلُ وَظَنُّوْا أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ كُذِبُوْا جَاءَهُمْ نَصْرُنَا
[They continued] until, when the messengers despaired and were certain that they had been denied, there came to them Our victory.[45]
Similarly, it was on account of the utter despondency of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu at this juncture that the assistance descended and the glad tidings of:
لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا
“Do not grieve; indeed, Allah is with us.”[46]
In other words, O Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu! Do not be despondent or sad. Be consoled that our Rabb is with both of us.
Essentially this promise came to pass and both were saved from the evil clutches of the kuffar, and they reached Madinah safely. The manner in which the light of Islam shone forth from this point is common knowledge and clearer than the sun. Thus, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu deserves our utmost gratitude and supplications because had it not been for his concern and distress then this outcome would never have materialised. It was on account of this concern and distress that led to the lands of Iran being liberated from the hands of the kuffar, giving the Shia a homeland, but this unappreciative ilk, instead of expressing gratefulness, express such repulsive sentiment towards him, the likes of which no person will articulate for his benefactor.
Another laughable interpretation of the Shia and its refutation
At times some become extremely prejudiced and say that up until this point in time Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was exactly as is understood from the Word of Allah but he did not remain the same thereafter. This pseudo-objection does not merit a response rather it would be better for the Shia to never utter such an allegation as this would prompt the Hindu and British to mockingly say: “Farewell to such a deity who is unaware of what is to transpire a few days from now.” Furthermore, if we were to hypothetically accept this (merely relating the outcome of their belief but not ascribing to it) that Allah was unaware of the crimes which Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu would later perpetrate and only erroneously uttered these remarks, then it would demand that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala prove His Word to be true and bring the ‘deceiving’ Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu back to the straight path, by force if need be. After all, this is the Lord and Master of the Universe we are talking about and not some ordinary being, who would sit idly by while his word is proven false. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu: “I am with you”, and Allah has also said:
لَا تَبْدِيْلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ
No change is there in the words [i.e., decrees] of Allah.[47]
مَا يُبَدَّلُ الْقَوْلُ لَدَيَّ
The word [i.e., decree] will not be changed with Me [48]
Both verses have the same meaning, which is that the word of Allah does not change. How then is it possible that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala abandoned Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, such that Shaitan then took hold of him or to put it more blatantly that Allah was with Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu but then could not withstand the onslaught of Shaitan and was forced to abandon him. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is indeed pure and above that. Instead, it would be more prudent for the Shia to never utter such allegations.
The wording of the verse utterly silences any Shia response
They fail to understand that firstly the statement:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
is such a sentence, that in accordance with Arabic prose, it denotes perpetuity. Those acquainted with Arabic and the laws of balaghah (eloquence) would be well-aware of this, and even to ‘Ammar ‘Ali, this much is absolutely certain.
Secondly, if we were to all accept that this verse does not prove any perpetuity then the Shia will have to admit to the fact that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu jointly shared in the closeness and assistance at that moment. Now, it is absolutely impossible that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala ever separated from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and abandoned being close to him and assisting him. This implies that the share of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the verse, “Indeed Allah is with us”, was in fact perpetual, which would warrant that the share of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu also be perpetual. The reason being that both were referred to in one instance and not separately; the words “مَعِىَ” (with me) and “مَعَكَ” (with you) were not used.
Thirdly, even if we were to overlook all of the above, we will say that the statement of Shaitan appears in Surah al Sad as follows:
قَالَ فَبِعِزَّتِكَ لَأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِيْنَ – إِلَّا عِبَادَكَ مِنْهُمُ الْمُخْلَصِيْنَ
[Iblees] said, “By Your might, I will surely mislead them all. Except, among them, Your chosen servants“.[49]
As they are beyond his reach on account of them being under the refuge of Allah. In Surah al Hijr, after the words: “Except your sincere slaves from amongst them”, Allah by way of attestation to the words of Shaitan states:
إِنَّ عِبَادِيْ لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ
Indeed, over My [believing] servants there is for you no authority.[50]
In other words, Shaitan is being told that you are truthful in your statement that whoever seeks refuge in Me, you will have no influence over them. Therefore, ponder deeply over this verse:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
It clearly proves Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu having come into the refuge of Allah, in other words that he has come into the court or within the borders of Allah. So Shaitan does not have the ability to remove anybody from this proximity, so then who is there who can remove Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu? If they respond by saying that Allah Himself has removed Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu then this is in itself incorrect as Allah has said:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوْا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ
Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.[51]
The impossibility of his condition changing
Moreover, it was impossible for the condition of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to have changed on account of satanic enticement or deception because it is evident, in fact clearer than the sun, that capability is required in order to carry out any action. In order for one to give charity, generosity is required. Similarly, to march into battle would first require bravery. The same applies in evil and sin as well, it too requires an ability or capability. Thus, if that ability did exist within him then Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala removed it. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says it so beautifully in the Qur’an:
اَلْخَبِیْثٰتُ لِلْخَبِیْثِیْنَ وَ الْخَبِیْثُوْنَ لِلْخَبِیْثٰتِ ۖ وَ الطَّیِّبٰتُ لِلطَّیِّبِیْنَ وَ الطَّیِّبُوْنَ لِلطَّیِّبٰتِۚ
Evil words are for evil men, and evil men are [subjected] to evil words. And good words are for good men, and good men are [an object] of good words.[52]
In fact, the statement that was made at this juncture:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
establishes that Allah will not be separated from him. The reason being that if the statement:
وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ
Allah is with the believers. [53]
Were to have been mentioned after the words:
لَا تَحْزَنْ
Grieve not.
Then too we would understand that Allah will only be with us as long as we have iman and iman is a prerequisite for the proximity of Allah. If one were to lose his iman then we would understand that he has lost the proximity to Allah as well. However, in this instance, where Allah has not mentioned any condition for His proximity, it will mean that it is perpetual and will never be lost. The connection created through the bonds of blood can never be broken whereas those friendships based upon good character and goodness will remain as long as the good character and goodness prevails. This is the reason why friendships often break but familial ties remain intact. In essence, familial ties are attached to yourself whereas the ties of friendship are attached to acts of virtue. Therefore, since Allah said:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Indeed, Allah is with us.
And not:
اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ
Indeed, Allah is with the believers.
Or any other expression, whereby it requires a particular quality, it becomes known that the ties of togetherness between Allah and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is attached to his person and not any particular quality (that may be lost tomorrow).
Thus, if the relationship were to change then it would change in accordance with the verse:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوْا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ
Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.[54]
This stipulates that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala changes the relationship on account of the qualities in a person changing. So, when a change in relationship arises it will be on account of those qualities (on which the relationship was based) having changed and not without reason. The corollary of the Shia argument would be that Allah had committed a major oversight for failing to mention the quality upon which the relationship was based (i.e. in the verse: “Indeed Allah is with us!”) and instead of saying:
Verily Allah is with the believers.
erroneously said:
Indeed, Allah is with us.
We seek refuge in Allah from such evil misunderstandings and from ever perceiving that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala could err or forget. Verily Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is as described by Nabi Musa ‘alayh al Salam:
لَا یَضِلُّ رَبِّیْ وَ لَا یَنْسَی
My Lord neither errs nor forgets.[55]
The status of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu
Objectively, if impartiality were to reign, then the words “With us” would be understood to accord Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu a status close too (but below) that of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which is a level of proximity that he has conferred on both of them. This will make it incumbent to award him the title of “al Siddiq al Akbar” and that he be regarded as the most superior of not only this Ummah but of previous nations as well (aside from the Prophets). If it is said that the ceiling of his status was the floor level of that of nubuwwah, which is suitably provided by the fact that he was a partner to the messenger in a certain matter, then both the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia know that there is no station which is linked to the station of nubuwwah other than the station of Siddiqiyyah. The reason being that Allah makes mention of the Siddiqin immediately after the Prophets, which informs us that in every nation there will be a Siddiq whose status will be connected to that of the Nabi and fall just under the status of that Nabi. Since the nubuwwah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam surpasses that of the other Prophets so too will the Siddiq of this nation surpass the Siddiqin of all other nations.
This should suffice for the objective and if Allah grants understanding to the prejudiced then only will they understand. Where is it possible for a weak person such as myself to make them understand? However, it is incumbent upon me to mention this much as an advice:
The enemies of those whom Allah has sided with are doomed.
Another Shia diversion
After the discussion above, the only avenue left for one to adopt would be to say that:
لَا تَحْزَنْ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مَعَنَا
Do not grieve; indeed, Allah is with us.
is in reality not the speech of Allah but the speech of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Allah is simply narrating it and not speaking from Himself. Whatever emanated from the blessed tongue of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah quoted verbatim just as He quoted the statement of Firoun:
اَنَا رَبُّكُمُ الْاَعْلٰ
And said, “I am your most exalted lord.”[56]
And the statement of Shaitan:
اَنَا خَیْرٌ مِّنْهُ
I am better than him.[57]
Even though the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayh