|Tauheed-Sunnat.com is providing online Naat, Naats, mp3 Naats, Naat MP3, Download Naats by Album | and Urdu Naats, Punjabi Naats, Pashto Naat, Naats Sharif, Naat Shareef by Naat Khuwan - Junaid Jamshed Naat and Junaid Naats, also providing Urdu Quran Translation | Urdu Bayans by Ulama | Urdu Speech by Subject | Tilawat Quran with Urdu Translation | Online Quran | MP3 Quran | Quran Tafseer in Urdu | Quran Tafseer in English | Lectures of Maulana Tariq Jameel also spelled as Molana Tariq Jamil - Tauheed-Sunnat.com is also providing online Urdu Islamic Books | Urdu Islamic Book | English Islamic Books | Urdu Articles | English Articles|
Running this website costs money. If you would like to help spread the deen of Allah swt to others, or if tauheed-sunnat.com.com has benefitted you in any way, please consider donating whatever you can. Insha'allah you will be rewarded with Sadaqah Jarriyah (ongoing charity). Jazakallahu Khair. Paypal Account is firstname.lastname@example.org
Donate with an open HEART in the path of ISLAM. Tauheed-Sunnat.com is receiving 4000 daily visits. We urgently need more money to keep the website going.
What we have seen in the preceding pages about the beliefs of Ruhullah Khomeini, particularly his conviction and attitude concerning the first three Caliphs, was based only on one of his books entitled, Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia. Till then, we had only that book among his writings with us, in which the nomination of Hazrat Ali to the office of the Imamate and the Caliphate, by the Holy Prophet, under the command of God, had been mentioned in such a manner that no conclusion could be derived from it except that the first three Caliphs and all the Companions who had accepted them as the deputies and Caliphs of the sacred Prophet and the heads of the Islamic state and taken the pledge of loyalty at their hands were nothing but traitors to God and the Apostle, and apostates and renegades. But, as we have remarked, Khomeini had laid this charge on them so cleverly and skillfully, in that book, that the name of none of them had come to be mentioned anywhere in it, and we have, also, explained on what grounds of political expediency he had preferred that course.
But, fortunately, after it we obtained another of his books called Kashful Asrar about which we had learnt only a few days earlier that, in it, Khomeini had indulged in Tabarra (curse malediction; imprecation; execration) against Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Usman and other leading Companions in the manner of ordinary Tabarrai1 Shias. It is written in Persian and contains about three hundred and fifty pages.
In it, Khomeini has stated with full force and clarity that Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar and Hazrat Usman and all the prominent Companions who supported them were seekers of the world and extremely vicious and evil-minded. They were Muslims only in name, but apostates and infidels in reality. They had accepted Islam simply out of lust for power and rule and could stoop to anything to gain their objective. If needed, they could make alterations in the Quran and invent false traditions. There was no fear of God in their hearts and were wholly devoid of faith. If they felt that their purpose would be gained by abandoning Islam and turning into its bitter enemies like Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab they would not have abstained.
Though Khomeini has used an extremely painful language to show disrespect to the first three Caliphs and the Holy Companions at numerous places in Kashful Asrar, we will be, as a highly unpleasant duty, reproducing a few passages, belonging only to one discussion from it. It should be borne in mind that our purpose in the present volume is merely to acquaint the readers with Khomeini’s beliefs and convictions and to show his religious place and position. The refutation even of his most absurd an baseless assertions is excluded from our study.
On page 110 of Kashful Asrar, Khomeini has, under the caption, Guftar-e-Shia Dar Bab-e-Imamat i.e., ‘The Views Of Shias About Imamate’, discussed the differences between the Shias and Sunnis on this issue and explained the Shi’ite notions and views. The purport of it is that, after the death of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him), Hazrat Ali, Hasan and Husian, Salman farsi, Miqdad, Abu Zarr Ghifari, Ammar, Abbas and Ibn-I-Abbas wanted, and, also, had told the people that the proclamation of the holy Prophet be acted upon in respect of the Imamate and the Caliphate, i.e. Hazrat Ali should be accepted as the Wasi and successor of the Prophet and leer and head of the State. But factionalism, greed and avarice which have always stifled the voice of truth and trampled upon it and given rise to deplorable acts played their part on that occasion as well. While Hazrat Ali and the others mentioned above were busy with making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr was elected as the successor and Caliph at the meeting at the Saqifa1 of Bani Sa’ad. This was the first brick of the edifice of Caliphate which was placed at a wrong angle. Controversy and dispute arose as a result of it. The Shias maintain that nomination and appointment of Imams is and should be from the side of God, and it was by Him that Hazrat Ali and his descendants were designated as the Caliphs and rulers and the holy Prophet and acted according t it.
After stating his own standpoint and that of Shias of Isna Ashariyya sect, Khomeini has set the following questions and, then, proceeded to answer them.
"Why is the name of the Imam not explicitly mentioned in the Quran?"
What it signifies is that if the issue of the Imamate of Hazrat Ali and of the innocent Imams from among his descendants was, as Khomeini and all the Shias claim, according to both the Quran and commonsense, a fundamental principle of Islam and had been referred to in the Quran at some places, why did God also, not mention the name of the Imam clearly in the Quran. Had it been done, controversy would not have arisen in the Ummat over it and bloodshed would have been avoided. Kashful Asrar: p. 112
Khomeini has given several answers to this question. Two of them are irrelevant to our purpose and, as such, we will ignore them with the remark that the impression gained by a study of Al-Hukumat-ul-Islamia and Tahrir-ul-Wasila about the erudition of Khomeini (aside of his faith) is severely impaired by these answers. It only shows how when even a learned person forms a mistaken belief and is determined to uphold it, he can go to the extent of saying the most shallow and senseless things. Had we been interested in the criticism and denunciation of Khomeini, we would have taken up both the answers for discussion and exposed their absurdity, but we have no such inclination.
The third answer which is relevant to our study reads: Suppose the name of the Imam i.e., Hazrat Ali had been mentioned in the Quran to succeed the Prophet (peace be upon him), how did it follow that there would have been no dispute in the Ummat over Imamate and Caliphate ? Those who had associated themselves closely with the Prophet’s faith, i.e., Islam for years and remained attached to it out of greed for power and yet had been conspiring and sowing discord and factionalism to play their game, would they have bowed before the pronouncement of the Quran and abandoned their plan and objective. Would they not have gone to any length of fraud and subterfuge to attain their aim? Probably, in that event, a dispute of such a dimension would have arisen in the Ummat that the very foundations of Islam would have been destroyed for it was very likely that those who had accepted Islam solely for the sake of coming into power would have openly resiled from it when they saw that they could not gain their end by remaining associated with it, and confronted it as enemies. (Kashful Asrar: p. 113-14).
Now, who were the ‘wretched’ people who had embraced Islam in their lust for power and rule and would not have accepted the Caliphate of Hazrat Ali even if it had been mentioned, in plain words, in the Quran and gone to the extent of raising the banner of revolt against the Faith itself in case of failure to realize their objective by remaining within its fold?.
It is among the well-known axioms of the Shi’ite. It is said that Hazrat Abu Bakr had been told by a soothsayer friend, (according to another Shi’ite tradition it was a Jewish theological scholar) that a prophet would be born in Mecca who was to establish his rule, and if Abu Bakr joined him, he wold succeed him as the ruler. It was because of this forecast that Hazrat Abu Bakr and embraced Islam.1
It is stated in Hamla-I-Haidari, on page 14, that:
"Before the dawn of Apostleship, a soothsayer had told Abu Bakr that soon a celebrated person would be born in the city of Mecca who would be the last of the Prophets. His religion would spread throughout the world. Those who believed in him wold attain honour and respect while those who did not, would be disgraced in the world. He, then, advised Abu Bakr to associate himself with that person for, in that case, after his death, he would be his successor. Abu Bakr remembered what the soothsayer had said, and accepted the faith and associated himself with the Prophet when he declared his Apostleship".2
Again, the famous Shia author, Baqar Majlisi, in his Risala Rajiyya writes that the Twelfth Imam (Imam Mehdi) who went into hiding at a very young age, once said:
"On the advice of a Jew, he (Abu Bakr) had verbally recited the confessional formula of Islam in the hope that, probably, the Prophet (peace be upon him) will hand over the rule and authority to him, but had remained an infidel at heart".3
However, by quoting the aforementioned extracts, Khomeini has contended about the first three Caliphs and their colleagues, i.e., all the leading Companions that their aim in accepting Islam was merely to acquire power and authority, and, for it, they could go event o the length of rejecting the Quran, and, if like Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal, they felt that their objective could be gained by renouncing Islam and turning hostile to it, they could, unhesitatingly, do that as well.
Khomeini goes on to add that had God clearly mentioned the name of the Imam, it was quite possible for those who swore by the Quran and Islam only to gain power and wealth and use them simply as a means for the realization of their evil ambitions, to have tampered with the Quran and removed the verses indicating the name of the Imam which would have been a matter of shame for the Muslims and their Quran till the end of time. The charge made by the Muslims with regard to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures would, then, have applied to them and their Quran as well.
Khomeini, further, says that even if it was assumed that a verse had been revealed indicating distinctly the name of Hazrat Ali as the Imam and the Caliph, and the fears we have expressed above would not have materialized, and the Quran, also, was not changed and the verse was retained in it in its original form, in that case, too, the difference that arose among the Muslims over the question of Imamte an Caliphate would, positively, have arisen for the party i.e., the party of Abu Bakr and Omar which , at heart, was the seeker of power and had attached itself to Islam only to attain its objective would, surely, not have given up its aim and design because of that verse of the Quran, but would, at once, have fabricated a tradition and attributed it to the holy Prophet denoting that, at the time of his death, he had said that the issue of the Imamate and Caliphate should be settled among the Muslims by mutual consultation, and God had dismissed Ali bin Abu Talib from the office of Imamate.
The significance of the above is self-evident, and reveals and lays bare the real views and beliefs of Ruhullah Khomeini.
Proceeding, further, Khomeini indulges in Tabarra against Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar. He says: "If you hold that in case the Caliphate and Imamate of Hazrat Ali had been mentioned, in so many words, in the Quran, Abu Bakr and Omar could not go against it, and if they tried to do so, the general body of Muslims would not have tolerated it (then it would be pure wishful thinking). We will give a few examples, here, of how Abu Bakr, and in the same way, Omar acted and gave decisions in open violation of the dictates of the Quran and the Muslims accepted them and not a voice of protest was raised."1
Khomeini, then, cites three instances of the violation of the Quran by Hazrat Abu Bakr. The first of these which, perhaps, in Khomeini’s view is most weighty, is that according to the Quran and the law of inheritance laid down by it, the Prophet’s daughter, Hazrat Fatima, was the legal heir to the property left behind by him, but after assuming the Caliphate, Hazrat Abu Bakr deprived her of the inheritance in open violation of the Quran, and narrated before the people the Tradition, concocted by him, that the holy Prophet had said: "There is no heir to a Prophet. What we leave behind is Sadqa2".
As we have pointed out repeatedly, it is beyond the scope of our study to examine and refute the views and assertions of Khomeini. We will, however, remark, in passing that, on the basis of this Tradition, Hazrat Abu Bakr had, also, denied inheritance to his own daughter, Ayesha Siddiqa and the daughter of Hazrat Omar, Hazrat Hafsa, both of whom were the wives of sacred Prophet, and, thus were entitled to a share in the property left behind by him. Those interested in the matter may see Aayaat-e-Baiyyanat by Nawab Mohsinul Mulk.
The other two examples are of the same class. Khomeini, then, gives four examples of the violation of the Quran by Hazrat Omar, the foremost and most important of which, in his opinion, is appertaining to Mut’a (temporary marriage), He says that Hazrat Omar had declared it unlawful while the Quran clearly permitted it.1 The other three examples are of the same kind.
These examples are enough to show the hatred and enmity Khomeini bears in the heart for Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar and the Holy Companions in general. It is not my purpose to dilate upon Sunni-Shia differences. Thousands of books, pamphlet and articles have been written on the subject during the last seven or eight centuries. From Shaikhul Islam Ibne Taimiyya to Maulana Abdul Shakoor of Lucknow so much has been written on it that it can fill a library. Further, what we have said in the present book is addressed only to Sunni Muslims, particularly their educated and intelligent sections whom the massive and false propaganda unleashed by the Iranian Government has led to believe that Khomeini was above Shia-Sunni differences; he was an advocate of Islamic unity, and held the illustrious Caliphs in respect and those who talked about Shia-Sunni differences in that context, were the real mischief-makers. This propaganda based, as it is, entirely on Taqaiyya and deception has permeated the whole atmosphere. Not only it is being carried on in Urdu, in the shape of books, pamphlets, journals and folders for the people of India and Pakistan, but, also, in various languages of Europe, America and Africa, and on a much wider scale. Under its influence, the educated Muslims who, on the whole, are not aware of the truth are holding Khomeini in the same high esteem as indicated above. They do not know that Taqaiyya i.e. deceiving others by falsehood is not only permissible in Shia religion, but also, an act of high worship, and the practice (sunnat) to the innocent Imams. In many authentic books of Shias it is, for instance, stated as a tenet or doctrine that a Namaz offered behind a Sunni Imam, in exercise of Taqaiyya, is twenty-five times more meritorious.
Leaving aside most of the hurtful and pernicious things Khomeini has said against the first three Caliphs, we will mention only one such utterance against Hazrat Omar. Under the heading, ‘Opposition of Omar to the Quran of God’, he mentions Hadith-e-Qirta (Tradition of the Paper), and after referring to the traditional Shi’ite interpretation of the remark made by Hazrat Omar on that occasion, observes that "this absurd remark is based upon the infidelity and Zandaqa1 of the person who is opposed to so many verses of the Quran".
Hazrat Omar has, thus, openly been condemned as an infidel and Zandiq.2
Khomeini concludes that the examples he gave went to show that open opposition to and violation of the Quran by Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar, were nothing extraordinary for them. The condition of the Muslims i.e., the holy Companions, at that time, was that either they sided with the two Caliphs, as members of their party, and supported them whole-heartedly in their hateful aim and design or did not have the courage to utter a word in opposition to those powerful an cruel ‘Hypocrites’ who had caused pain and suffering to the Prophet himself and his beloved daughter, Fatima.3 Khomeini maintains that even if a verse mentioning Hazrat Ali as the successor had been revealed, the two Sheikhs, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar, and their colleagues would not have abandoned their plan. Hazrat Abu Bakr who had already thought out his line of action would have readily invented a tradition of the Prophet, and closed the chapter with it, as he had done to prevent Hazrat Fatima from inheriting the property left behind by her father, the holy Prophet. And it was not beyond Omar to say that either God had erred in revealing the verse or Gabriel had erred in carrying it to the sacred Prophet, and the Sunnis would have stood up in their support and accepted their statements opposed though they would have been to Divine commandments as had been their conduct with regard to alterations made by Hazrat Omar in Islam and its injunctions. In all these matters, the Sunnis had given preference to the words of Hazrat Omar over the words of God and the sacred Prophet.
Hazrat Usman Zunnurain:
The readers might be wondering why Khomeini has spared the third Caliph, Hazrat Usman, while defaming , maligning and vilifying the first two Caliphs and the holy Companions and pious precursors, as a whole. It is not that he has a soft corner for Hazrat Usman. His malice towards him is so great that he treats Hazrat Usman, with Hazrat Muawiya, as guilty and despicable of the same class as Yazid. Thus, on page 100 of Kashful Asrar, he writes:
"We worship a God and believe in Him whose every act is in accord with wisdom, and not a God who erects a magnificent edifice of God-fearingness, righteousness and justice, and, then, Himself seeks to demolish it by entrusting the reins of government to tyrants and scoundrels like Yazid, Muawiya and Usman".
About the above observation we will content ourselves with the remark that, according to it Hazrat Usman, too, with whom the Holy Prophet had married two of his daughters, one after the other, and this honour had not fallen to the lot of anyone else was as great an evil-doer as Yazid.
Hazrat Ali Murtuza:
Now Hazrat Ali, alone, is left along with three or four other Companions – Hazrat Salman Farsi, Abu Zarr Ghifari, Miqdad bin Aswad, and, according to another version, Ammar bin Yasir as well. According to Shias these alone, were true Believers among over a lakh of Muslims, who remained steadfast, also, after the passing away of the Prophet. Of this group of four or five persons Hazrat Ali was the leader and Amir. The others were his followers. But, as Shi’ite traditions tell, those august person, with Hazrat Ali, took to the path of Taqaiyya, and against their conscience, pledged loyalty at the hand of Hazrat Abu Bakr, knowing fully well that Hazrat Abu Bakr was not a Believer but a hypocrite who had accepted Islam only to seize power and authority, and, if need be, could make alterations in the Quran and even reject the Faith and turn into its bitter enemy like Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab. In Ehtijaj-I-Tabrasi, it is stated, on page 48, that:
"Except Ali and the other four, in the whole of the Ummat, none had pledged fealty to Abu Bakr under pressure or compulsion i.e. , all the Muslims, except them, had taken the vow willingly and with pleasure". Again, the Shia traditions affirm that Hazrat Ali adhered to the doctrine of Taqaiyya throughout the Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr, offered the five daily prayers behind him, and fully co-operated with him in all mattes of the State. The conduct of Hazrat Ali remained the same throughout the ten years of the Caliphate of Hazrat Omar and the twelve years of the Caliphate of Hazrat Usman. In short, he adhered to this course of conduct and continued to behave like that during al the twenty-four years of the reign of the first three Caliphs and never expressed his difference over the issue of Imamate and Caliphate in any of the congregations like those of Friday, the two I'd’ and the Haj Pilgrimage. On the contrary, his conduct was one of co-operation and faithfulness.
The story of pressure and coercion put forth in Shia traditions is shameful to the extreme and most insulting for Hazrat Ali himself. The book, Ehtijaj-I-Tabrasi, goes on to say, on pages 47 and 48, that:
"A rope was (once) put around the neck of Hazrat Ali and he was dragged from his house and brought to (Hazrat) Abu Bakr where Omar and Khalid bin Walid and others were, also, present with swords in their hands and Omar threatened him to take the oath of allegiance and loyalty or he would be beheaded. It was in this way that he was coerced and compelled, and, then it was that he took the oath".
It is amazing how the Shia authors thought fit to include such ludicrous reports in their works which were so derogatory to Hazrat Ali. In our view, nothing can explain it except the bitter malice and enmity of the authors towards the first three Caliphs and in their eagerness to show that they were tyrants and oppressors they failed to appreciate in what colors did Hazrat Ali himself emerge from the narrations.
Hazrat Ali was among the illustrious precursors. God had granted him extraordinary courage and strength, and sense of self-respect, honour and dignity. Besides, under the care and guidance of the Prophet (peace be upon him) the qualities of unswerving firmness of faith, resoluteness and fearlessness, and love for martyrdom in the cause of Islam had evolved to exemplary heights in him and such cowardice could never be imagined about him.
Even in later eras, the Ummat continued to throw up outstanding personalities who set up glowing examples of "speaking out the truth before a tyrant ruler". Imam Abu Hanifa, for instance, refused to comply with anexpressed desire of the Caliph of the day for, in his view, it was wrong and unjust and preferred imprisonment as a result of it. Similarly, the Abbasid ruler of the time had forbidden Imam Maalik from relating the principle of divorce under compulsion (Talaq-e-Mukrah), but he refused to do so. As a consequence, heavy punishment was inflicted upon him. Like an ordinary criminal he was mounted on a camel and taken round the town to let the people know that even a leading religious figure could not afford to defy the ruler. During it, Imam Maalik, on his part, kept on saying at the top of his voice, "Whoever recognises me, knows; whoever dose not recognise me I tell him that I am Maalik son of Anas. Listen; I say and give the verdict that, Talaq-e-Mukrah (divorce under compulsion) is invalid". Likewise, the Caliph tried to force Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal to support his views on the issue of ‘Creation of Quran’. When Imam Ahmad refused to oblige, he was punished with public flogging. He bled profusely, but went on shouting that "the Quran is the Word of God, and not a creation".
These examples were from the earlier centuries of Islam. In every age, men of high caliber have been born in the Ummat who showed extreme steadfastness and valour in the hour of trial. In our own age, when, after its victory in World War I, the British Government had proved itself to be the greatest power in the world, the Khilafat movement was launched in India. Thousands of Muslims took part in it and the leaders used to give rebellious speeches knowing fully well that they would have to undergo imprisonment, and prisons, in those days, were virtually the samples of Hell on the earth. The following incident is, particularly, wroth remembering. Hazrat Maulana Syed Husain Ahmad Madani who had declared in a public speech that service in the British army was Haram (forbidden) according to the Shariat was arrested and criminal proceedings against him were instituted at Karachi. The court asked him whether he had delivered the speech. The replied, "Yes, I had said and still say that military service of the Britishers is forbidden." As expected, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Anyway, what the Shias say about the deception (Taqaiyya) of Hazrat Ali and his pledging allegiance and co-operation to an holding high offices under the first three Caliphs under compulsion and coercion is neither proved by history nor acceptable to commonsense. It is, also, defamatory and calumnious. If it is accepted as true, Hazrat Ali does not even remain worthy of his testimony being relied upon in any court.
To say, as the Shia traditions make out, the Hazrat Ali acted in that manner under the order of God and the Prophet will be in conformity with the maxim, ‘To offer an excuse for a sin is worse than the sin’. It will amount to holding God and the holy Prophet responsible for the grave misdeed.
The above ha been written only to clear the position of Hazrat Ali, and to show to the readers who have learnt about the views of Khomeini regarding Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Omar, Hazrat Usman and he holy Companions, in general, what his beliefs are concerning Hazrat Ali without which it is not possible to understand both Khomeini and the Shi’ite faith.
REVIEW OF KHOMEINI’S OBSERVATIONS
ABOUT THE FIRST THREE CALIPHS,
THE COMPANIONS, IN GENERAL
Without resorting to Taqaiyya, Khomeini has not minced words in condemning, maligning, insulting and abusing the first three Caliphs, the Companions, in general, and Ahle Sunnat. Before discussing them, we may sum up his remarks concerning them in these words:
1. Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar were not true Believers. They had only apparently accepted Islam in their greed for power and authority, and, for that purpose, joined the Prophet.
2. They had drawn up their plan from the very beginning and formed a party of like-minded persons. Their objective was to acquire power and rule after the Prophet. Apart from it, they had nothing to do with Islam or the Quran.
3. Even if the Quran had clearly and specifically mentioned the name of Hazrat Ali as Imam and Caliph after the Prophet these persons would not have given up their aim and objective and stopped at nothing to nullify the command of God.
4. For them it was an ordinary matter to act against the Quranic injunctions and the Divine decree.
5. They would have easily removed the verse carrying the command in favour of Hazrat Ali from the Quran.
6. If they did not resort to cancellation of the said verse, they would have, surely, concocted a Hedith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), relating that he had said near his end that the matter of Imamate and Khilafat should be decided by general consultation, and Hazrat Ali who had been nominated to the Imamate, and had it, also, been set forth in the Quran, had been deposed from that high office.
7. They would have declared that either God or the Prophet or Gabrial ha erred in the revelation or communication of that verse.
8. Referring to Hadees-e-Qirtas, Khomeini has stated in a most pathetic manner that Hazart Omar behaved rudely with the Prophet when hid death was near and caused pain and anguish to him, and that the Prophet departed from the world with the scar of that insolence on his heart. Khomeini ha, further, remarked that what Hazart Omar had said on that occasion was a clear indication of his Zandaqa and infidelity. Or, in other words, Hazart Omar was, in fact, in infidel and a Zandaqi
9. If the first two Caliphs and realised that with the supposed Quranic verse in favor of Hazart Ali they could not succeed in their game, they, with their supporters, would have abandoned Islam, and, like Abu Jahal and Abu Lahab, risen against it.
10. Hazrat Usman, Hazart Muaviya and Yazid belonged to the same class of tyrants and criminals.
11. The Companions, in general, either sided with the first three Caliphs or were so much overawed by them that they could not utter a word of protest or disagreement.
12. All the Ahle Sunnat accept and follow, as against the Quran, what Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Omar have said contrary to and in open violation of its explicit injunctions. The Sunnis accepted and are following the changes made by Hazrat Omar in Islam and he orders issued by him in opposition to the Quran.
In maligning the Companions, the foremost of the Believers and the heroes and stalwarts of Islam, Khomeini has not spared anyone except Hazart Ali and three or four of his supposed associates. According to him, Hazart Abu Obeidah bin al-Jarrah, Hazart Abdul Rehman bin Auf, Hazart Khalid bin Walid, and, in fact, all others were hypocrites, so wocked and ungodly that they could tamper with and distort the Quran, and could have even fought against Islam to attain their purpose.
By saying all this, Khomeini has unscrupulously belied the Quran which definitely and in very clear terms says that the illustrious Caliphs, including Hazart Ali, and the pious precursors and Companions of the Prophet were sincere and true Believers (Mominin-e-Saidqin), favourites of the Lord and dwellers of Paradise. God was pleased with them, and they were pleased with God.
All the verses of the Quran relating to it, with full commentary and exposition, can be seen in Izalatul Khifa by Shah Wali Ullah and Ayat-e-Baiyyanat by Nawab Mohsip-ul-Mulk. In addition, Maulana Abdul Shakoor has written a large number of pamphlets and comprehensive books some of which run into 750 pages like Tafsir-I-Aayate-e-Khilafat, Tafsir-I-Aayat Istikhlaf, Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Tamkin Fil Arz, Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Fai, Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Izhar-e-Din, Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Riwan, Tafsir-I-Aaayat Miras-e-Arz, Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Maiyyat and Tafsir-I-Aayat-e-Dawat-e-Araba.1
A study of these works will convince anyone that God has miraculously preserved in them the testimony about the Companions being true and sincere Believers, one of the reasons being that God’s Last Book revealed to the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and all of the Prophet’s teachings were to be carried to posterity through these very persons. They were the eye-witnesses of the sacred Prophet’s declaration of Apostleship and all that he had done or experience din life: his conduct, character, teachings and miracles. It was their testimony and call which brought into the fold of Islam all those who came into it then or were to come afterwards. It was, again, for this purpose that besides testifying to the veracity, truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Companions, the Prophet (peace be upon him) has, in so many Traditions, also, narrated their virtues and moral excellence.
Just as Khomeini has declared that the chain of Apostleship had not ended with the Prophet Mohammad, and a Prophet could, of course, be raised after him, and, thus refuted the verses of the Quran and the Traditions of the holy Prophet bearing on it, in the same way, all that we have reproduced from him in proceeding lines is in direct refutation and falsification of the Quranic verses and the Prophet’s Tradition indicated above.
In respect of the holy Prophet himself:
The matter does not end with the falsification of the Quran but a more serious issue is involved which is that if the observations of Khomeini about the Holy Companions were accepted, it would necessarily mean that the Apostle raised up by God for the guidance, reformation, cleansing and upliftment of mankind, had not only failed in his mission, but, also, proved to be wholly incompetent, unfit and unqualified for it. In his own life-time more than a lakh persons had accepted Islam and a very large number of them had been closely associated with him from the beginning of the Apostleship to the end and had listened directly from him his teachings and sermons day and night, and observed, all the time, his conduct, behaviour and management of affairs. But faith could not enter into the hearts of even ten of them and, God forbid, they were not only hypocrites, but, also, infidels. Can there be a greater proof of the failure of a spiritual guide o reformer ? Then, again, Khomeini has said even about Hazrat Ali and his three or four associates about whom it is stressed that they were true Believers, that they had accepted the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs out of fear and under threat and compulsion knowing fully well that they were not only hypocrites and infidels, but, also, arch-enemies of the holy Prophet and Ahl-I-Bait1 and taking recourse to taqaiyya, had adopted the attitude of loyalty and submission to them during all the twenty-four years of their rule.
Unreliability of the Quran:
The asseverations, made by Khomeini, further, naturally lead to the conclusion that the Quran is totally unreliable, for it is a fact that the Quran was codified and given its present form and shape officially after the death of the Prophet and during the Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr, and Hazrat Usman had a number of its copies made and sent them to all the central places of the Islamic world. And, according to Khomeini the first three Caliph were so sinful and vicious that they could easily make alterations in the Quran to gain their political and worldly ends, and had they done so, there was none among the Companions to raise a voice of protest. They all were afraid of them and simply assented to whatever they did. Once a person agrees with Khomeini there remains no possibility of the Quran being inviolate and the belief that it was the same Book of God that was revealed to the Prophet in which no alteration or distortion had been made. Clearly enough, faith denotes attestation by heart and certitude which is above all doubt and distrust. After accepting the statements of Khomeini concerning the first three Caliphs it, certainly, becomes out of the question. We have discussed the matter of faith in Quran, here, only in the light of Khomeini’s assertions. It will be taken up more fully at the proper place in the light of the statements of the Innocent Imams and the leading Shia Ulema.
Yet another Implication:
If what Khomeini has written about the first three Caliphs and all the leading Companions and close associates of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is read by non-Muslims, the only conclusion they can draw in the present-day world of political deceit and trickery that the declaration of Apostleship by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his call for a new religion was only a mans to gain power and authority, and some prominent and clever Meccans, like Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman, had joined him with the same ulterior motive, and thus, a party had come to be formed in the name of Islam. This organization was divided, from the very beginning, into two groups. In one group was the Prophet himself whose purpose and aim was to establish his rule for his own benefit and the benefit of the members of his family so that they could reign for generations. Thus, when such a rule had been established in Medina, the Prophet, according to Shi’ite traditions, made an announcement to that effect, under the direction of God on different occasions, and, finally, when the whole of Arabia had come under his sway, he formally proclaimed at Ghadir-I-Khum that his son-in-law, Ali bin Abi talib, will be his Wali, successor and ruler after him, and then, the rule and sovereignty will remain with his descendants till the Last Day. Fearing that the people may not listen to him and go their own ways, the holy Prophet wanted, in his last days, a document to be prepared about the succession of Hazrat Ali, but due to the interference of the most powerful man of the second group, it could not be done.
The second group consisted of Abu Bakr, Omar and others who were determined to seize the reins of the government from the family of the Prophet and had been conspiring for it from the beginning, and, finally, succeeded in their objective through intrigue and fraud.
Would that the right-minded among the Shias seriously thought over Khomeini’s statements and impious assertions which are fraught with most dangerous and lamentable consequences.
The Prophet of Islam and the Companions had lived under the full glare of history. Every action of theirs is recorded which totally belies the statements that there was any difference or groupism among the Companions. The Quran says, "Mohammad is the Apostle of God; and his Companions are stern towards the unbelievers, and full of tenderness among themselves". (XLVIII: 29).
And, also that : "And (God) hath instilled in the hearts of the faithful the feeling of affection and oneness among the " . (VIII: 63).
Khomeini in the light of his Juristic Pronouncements.
What has been written so far concerns the belief and principles of Khomeini as set forth in his books, Al-Hukumut-ul-Islamia and Kashful Asrar. We shall now be taking up his boo, Tahrirul Wasilah, which will throw light on his distinctive personal character and disposition, and religious status and position.
In Tahrir-ul-Wasilah, Vol, I, Book, As-Salat, under the caption "Statement of things which invalidate Namaz" he writes: "The second act that invalidates Namaz is putting one hand on the other as people other than Shias do, but there is no harm in it if it is done under Taqaiyya".
"The ninth act which invalidates Namaz is saying of ‘Amen’ intentionally after Sura-I-Fatiha. But this, too, is permissible under Taqaiyya".
Besides Affirmation of the Unity of God and Apostleship, it is essential for Faith to testify to the Imamate of the Twelve Imams.
While explaining matters relating to death, Khomeini writs on page 65 of Vol. I:
"It is commendable to advise a man in throes of death to affirm the Unity of God and Apostleship of the Prophet and to acknowledge the Imamate of the twelve Imams".
Under the heading ‘Shroud’, he observes:
"It is desirable to write on the four corners of the shroud that this corpse of such-and-such person, son of such-and-such person, testifies that there is no God but God Who is One and without a partner, and Mohammad (peace be upon him and on his descendants) is His Prophet, and that Ali and Hasan and Husain, and, then, the names of all the Imams upto the twelfth should be mentioned, are his Imams and masters and leaders". (P. 76).
"Among other desirable things is that the guardian himself of the dead person, or anybody else proposed by him, should instruct the dead person in a loud voice, after his burial and departure of the persons who came with the bier, that he should testify the fundamental principles and belies of the faith viz., Unity of God, Apostleship of Prophet Mohammad, Imamate of the Innocent Imams and other tenets and precepts taught by the holy Prophet including the Hereafter. The Resurrection Accounting and Weighing of Deeds on the day of Judgement, and Pul-Shirat1 and Heaven and Hell".
Khomeini, thus, has clearly shown that belief in the Imamate of the Twelve Imams is an essential part of faith like the doctrines of the Oneness of God and the Apostleship of the sacred Prophet, and has precedence over the belief in the Hereafter and Heaven and Hell.
Mut’a (Temporary Marriage):
Mut’a is a well-known tenet of Shi’ite religion. In chapter, Nikah (Marriage), of his book Khomeini has devoted four pages to details concerning Muta, many of which are wroth mentioning, but owing to the limitation of space we are taking up only the last proposition. He writes:
"It is permissible to do Muta with an adulteress, but with aversion, particularly if she is a well-known prostitute. If Muta is done with her, she should be told to give-up her profession".
Khomeini has expounded that Muta can be done for a very short time, for only a day or night or even an hour or two, but it is necessary to settle the period and time beforehand.1
It should be noted that in Shia religion Muta is not only permissible, but, also, an act of worship of a high order. We have, already, seen the Shi’ite tradition that the Holy Prophet (once) said:
"He who does Muta once is equal in rank to Imam Husain, he who does it twice is equal in rank to Imam Hasan, he who does it three times attains the status of Hazrat Ali, an a person who does it four times, he will attain my station2".
We have, also, quoted, only a few pages earlier, the passage from Kashful Asrar in which Khomeini has stated that the prohibition of Muta by Hazrat Omar was a sheer violation of the Quran and an act of Apostasy.