Explanation of Hadith al-Manzila

An Analysis of the Hadith al-Manzila

 

Continuing from the previous entry in this series examining the proof–texts of the Imamiya Shi’a, we come to another important and well-known Hadith:

 

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَرَجَ إِلَى تَبُوكَ، وَاسْتَخْلَفَ عَلِيًّا فَقَالَ أَتُخَلِّفُنِي فِي الصِّبْيَانِ وَالنِّسَاءِ قَالَ أَلاَ تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ نَبِيٌّ بَعْدِي

 

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ set out for Tabuk, and made Ali his vicegerent. (Ali) said: “Are you leaving me behind among the children and women?” The Prophet ﷺ said: “Are you not pleased that you are to me in the position Aaron is to Moses, except there is no prophet after me.” (Bukhari)

Undoubtedly this blessed Hadith expresses a great virtue and excellence for sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib by comparing him to the great Prophet Aaron, the minister of Prophet Moses (peace be upon them all). However, the Imamiya Shi’a derive from this Hadith a proof that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ explicitly appointed sayyidina Ali as his successor, just as Aaron was Moses’s deputy. Yet a closer inspection of this Hadith, its critical wording and above all its context will reveal just how hollow the Imamiya claim is. Firstly, keep in mind that the Prophet designated Ali as his Khalîfa (successor, deputy, vicegerent) not for after his death, but during his temporary absence in Medina while he was off in the expedition of Tabuk, as the Hadith itself makes quite clear. Similarly, the Prophet Moses, when he went up to Mt. Sinai for forty nights in order to receive the Torah from God, left his elder brother Aaron as his deputy to take care of the affairs of the Israelites. Now it should be noted that Aaron was not Moses’s successor after Moses’s death, because Aaron, being older than Moses, actually died within Moses’s lifetime. Hypothetically, had Aaron been Moses’s successor after the latter’s death, then perhaps the Imamiya Shi’a would have ammunition in arguing that Ali was meant to be the Prophet’s ﷺ immediate successor. But the historical reality is that Prophet Moses was succeeded by the Prophet Joshua son of Nun (peace be upon him), yet there is no Hadith in which our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is reported to have said to Ali: “You are to me in the same position as Joshua was to Moses”. In fact, there isn’t a single Hadith established from our Prophet ﷺ in which he explicitly stated that “Ali is my successor after my death” or something along these lines which would constitute an explicit proof for the Imamiya claim. As for this Hadith al-Manzila, it only speaks of the temporary Khilafa (succession) of Ali during the absence of the Prophet ﷺ from Medina while he was involved in the expedition of Tabuk.

 

Now what I have written thus far is essentially the standard Sunni reply to the Imamiya Shi’a concerning the purport of this Hadith. But there is another important point which escapes many of the Sunnis and their Ulama which has been picked up upon by the Imamiya Shi’a, and which has the potential to disrupt the Sunni narrative if not adequately addressed. In order to dispel the notion that perhaps Ali might be a prophet, since he has been compared to Aaron, who was a Prophet, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “Except that there is no prophet after me.” Hence this is the only qualification to Ali’s similarity to Aaron in the latter’s relation to Moses. Aaron was Moses’s brother, his minister, and his deputy during the latter’s absence from the nation. Likewise, Ali is the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ brother in the sense of being his cousin and reared along him as a brother in the house of Abu Talib, and also the Prophet’s minister, his right-hand man, his representative. But in keeping with the accurate comparison to Aaron, it has to be conceded that Ali was not the Prophet’s ﷺ immediate successor after his death. Yet the Imamiya Shi’a raise the point that by saying “except there is no prophet after me” the Prophet was implying Ali’s succession after his death, because the word بعد “after” has been used. The Sunnis too interpret this Hadith to mean that there is no Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ death. Thus indirectly the Sunni interpretation gives ammunition to the Imamiya Shi’a in arguing that Ali was the Prophet’s successor after the Prophet’s death, with the qualification that Ali himself was not a prophet.

 

The answer to this argument is that the word بعد does not only mean “after” but can also be translated as “absence”, so if the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ intended to say “Ali is to me in the same position Aaron is to Moses except that there is no prophet in my absence” then the argument of the Imamiya Shi’a that the Prophet was pointing to Ali as being his immediate successor is nullified. I argue that the intention of the Prophet in the Hadith al-Manzila when he said لَيْسَ نَبِيٌّ بَعْدِي was “there is no prophet in my absence” and not “there is no prophet after my death”. The proof for this is the usage of the word بعد in relation to the Prophet Moses as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

 

وَإِذْ وَاعَدْنَا مُوسَىٰ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً ثُمَّ اتَّخَذْتُمُ الْعِجْلَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَنتُمْ ظَالِمُونَ

 

And when We made an appointment with Moses for forty nights. Then you took [for worship] the calf in his absence, while you were wrongdoers.

(Sura 2: 51)

 

وَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مُوسَىٰ إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ غَضْبَانَ أَسِفًا قَالَ بِئْسَمَا خَلَفْتُمُونِي مِن بَعْدِي

And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How evil is that by which you have done behind me in my absence”

(Sura 7: 150)

 

*See also Sura 2: 92; 7: 148

 

In conclusion, Hadith al-Manzila can in no way be construed as a proof that the Prophet ﷺ designated Ali b. Abi Talib as the one to immediately succeed him upon his death. The comparison with Aaron proves Ali’s succession and vicegerency was only during the absence of the Prophet ﷺ from Medina, like Aaron was in charge of the Israelites temporarily whilst Moses was absent having gone up to Mt. Sinai. Likewise, the comparison with Aaron makes it clear that Ali was not to be the Prophet’s ﷺ immediate successor, because Aaron died within Moses’s lifetime, who was actually succeeded by Joshua not Aaron.

Explanation of Hadith al-Thaqalain

An Analysis of the Hadith al-Thaqalain

The rationale of the ‘Finality of Prophethood’ is that the divine authority to speak on behalf of God is terminated in the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family) and that after him the authority in Religion is only invested in the Holy Qur’an revealed to him and in his Sunna (personal practice and teachings). However, the Imamiya Shi’a sect hold that after the Prophet, divine authority in matters of Religion have additionally been invested in the Prophet’s family and progeny. They are not merely saints and models of piety which Muslims are to take inspiration from, but are in themselves the ultimate divine authority to interpret and teach the Religion. One can easily see how this Imamiya doctrine contravenes the concept of ‘Finality of Prophethood’ so central to Islam (Sura 33: 40). But the Imamiya Shi’a argue that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family) himself instructed his Umma that after him they must adhere to his Ahl-al-Bait (household), which is the basis for the Ahl-al-Bait’s divine authority in the Religion, i.e., the Ahl-al-Bait are invested with the same divine authority as the Holy Qur’an itself. They cite the well–known Hadith al-Thaqalain ‘the Two Weighty–Things’ as evidence for this position. According to their interpretation, in this Hadith the Prophet ﷺ stated that he was leaving behind two things for his followers that they must cling to and adhere to, first the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and second his Ahl-al-Bait (Household). Hence these are the two ‘Weighty–Things’ that are invested with divine authority, adherence to which is mandatory in the religious sense. The Imamiya Shi’a point to the fact that there are versions of this Hadith present in the corpus accepted by the mainstream Sunni branch of Islam too, which only serves to confirm its historical authenticity. Now it is true there are versions of this Hadith in the Sunni corpus, though they have come with some variation in wording, and not all of the narrations are authentic. But the most authentic version of this Hadith for Sunnis is reported in the collection of Sahih Muslim:

قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فِينَا خَطِيبًا بِمَاءٍ يُدْعَى خُمًّا بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ وَذَكَّرَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَمَّا بَعْدُ أَلاَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ رَسُولُ رَبِّي فَأُجِيبَ وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي

Zaid b. Arqam narrates: One day Allah’s Messenger ﷺ stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a Messenger (the Angel of Death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you for Allah’s sake (of your duties) to the members of my family, I remind you for Allah’s sake (of your duties) to the members of my family, I remind you for Allah’s sake (of your duties) to the members of my family.

(Sahih Muslim)

Now a close analysis of this Hadith reveals the fact that the Imamiya Shi’ite thesis is unwarranted. Firstly, the phrase ‘I am leaving among you Two Weighty–Things’ does not make it explicit that these Two Weighty–Things possess divine authority. It is only to draw attention to the fact that these Two Weighty–Things are important and now the Prophet ﷺ will explain what his Will is for how the Muslims are to deal with them. Now the first is the Book of Allah (Qur’an), and the Prophet ﷺ explains that containing Guidance and Light, the Muslims have to adhere to it and follow it. Hence this phrase فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ is indicative of the Book of Allah possessing divine authority, and is the actual successor of the Prophet ﷺ in terms of possessing divine authority. This is similar to how the Sikhs believe that after their tenth ‘Guru’ Gobind Singh, the actual text of Sikhism, the Granth, became the ‘Guru’ for all time thereafter. Hence why it is referred to by them as ‘Guru’ Granth sahib. Similarly, in Islam, with the ‘Finality of Prophethood’ no other human being possesses the divine authority to speak on behalf of God, but the most sacred text of Islam, the Holy Qur’an, which contains God’s revelations to the Prophet ﷺ is what is left behind after him as the only thing containing divine authority until the end of time. Then the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the second of the Two–Weighty Things, namely his Ahl-al-Bait (members of his house), but he did not say the same thing about the Ahl-al-Bait that he said about the Book of Allah. Remember the Prophet ﷺ said we have to adhere to the Book of Allah and cling to it, establishing its divine authority, but he did not say the same thing about the Ahl-al-Bait. Rather he ﷺ reminded his Umma about his Ahl-al-Bait for Allah’s sake three times. This is to indicate that the Umma should not mistreat the Prophet’s Family, as the Prophet had foreseen through revelation and inspiration that his Family would face immense hardships and even persecution at the hands of the tyrannical so-called ‘Muslim’ rulers and dynasties. It can in no way be construed as meaning that the Umma is instructed to adhere to the Ahl-al-Bait as its divine authority. In fact, this Hadith is echoing an imperative already established from the text of the Suhuf-i-Mutahhara (Qur’an):

قُل لَّا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَىٰ

Say (O My Prophet ﷺ ): I do not ask you for this (Message) any payment except love for (my) Kin

(Sura 42: 23)

Early Islamic History (Part 1)

The Prophet Muhammad passed away in 632 CE. In his final years, he was not only a Prophet but had succeeded in conquering virtually all of the Arabian Peninsula and subduing the various Bedouin tribes who decided to convert to Islam. Therefore, when he died, his community and Arabia required leadership. Though the death of the Prophet meant that Islam as a religion was complete, the Qur’an as scripture and the Prophet’s teachings formed the source of Islam. So the function of the one to succeed the Prophet was not to act as a ‘Pope’ who speaks on behalf of God. Since the revelation is complete and Prophecy terminated after Prophet Muhammad, the only function of a leader would be to administer the politics of the Muslim community that was now dominant in Arabia.

The Sunni narrative is that the Prophet never appointed anyone to succeed him, since whoever would succeed him would not occupy a position of religious authority but only political authority. Therefore, the Sunnis say that after the Prophet died, it was up to the Muslim community to consult among themselves and elect someone qualified to succeed Prophet Muhammad only in the political and administrative sense. Historically, the Prophet’s disciples and the elders of his community in Medina ended up electing his close associate Abu Bakr to be the first successor, or Khalifa (anglicized as ‘Caliph’). The Sunnis say that Abu Bakr, because he was the Prophet’s most senior disciple, was best qualified to lead the community after the Prophet. The Sunnis admit that the Prophet never designated Abu Bakr as his successor, but gave some hints that he expected Abu Bakr to succeed him after his death, such as appointing Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayers in the Mosque since the Prophet was in his final illness and too weak to go to the Mosque.

 

Although the vast majority of the community of Muslims in Medina agreed that Abu Bakr should be in charge as ‘Caliph’ (for them a purely administrative position since religious authority to speak on behalf of God has terminated with Prophet Muhammad); not everyone accepted Abu Bakr, at least initially. There were some who felt that the Prophet should be succeeded by a relative. Now the Prophet has no surviving son. All three or four of his sons had died in infancy. But he was survived by his paternal uncle Abbas, and by his daughter Fatima. Fatima was married to the Prophet’s cousin Ali. Thus Ali was not only the Prophet’s cousin but also his son-in-law. Ali’s father, Abu Talib, had initially raised the Prophet, since the Prophet was an orphan whose parents died when he was still young. Abu Talib, the Prophet’s paternal uncle, though he never converted to Islam, nevertheless protected the Prophet when the latter was in Mecca.Some of the community felt that either Ali or Abbas should succeed the Prophet, not Abu Bakr, because Ali and Abbas were blood relations to the Prophet, especially Ali. Ali himself initially did not pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakr, but when he saw that virtually the entire community was behind Abu Bakr and recognized him as their leader, Ali then pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr himself.Meanwhile, the Bedouin Arabs outside of Medina had become ‘apostate’ for various reasons. Though they had accepted the Prophet in his final years, they now questioned how could a Prophet of God die? Some of them still believed in the Prophet and the practices and doctrines of Islam, but refused to accept Abu Bakr. They felt that Arabia should go back to its old tribal system and there should be no central authority. They therefore refused to pay the Zakat (religious tax) to Abu Bakr and his central government in Medina. Still others, having seen the success of Prophet Muhammad, decided to claim to be Prophets themselves in an attempt to replicate that success. Hence a few false prophets, like Musaylima emerged. Another false prophet, Aswat Ansi, emerged in Yemen. They too naturally rejected the central government’s authority and the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Hence, in Abu Bakr’s short period of caliphate of only 2 years, he sent out his armies to crush these rebellions, apostate movements and false prophets and once again unify Arabia under the caliphate. Within 2 years, with the help of the Prophet’s great general Khalid, known as the ‘Sword of God’, the apostate movements were crushed and Islam was re-established in Arabia. Just before Abu Bakr died, he consulted among the senior Prophet’s disciples and designated Umar to succeed him, thus Umar became the Prophet’s second successor in 634 CE.Now that the internal threats and apostasies were dealt with in Abu Bakr’s short reign of 2 years, Umar, the second caliph, was able to focus his attention on defeating the Byzantine Roman and Sassanid Persian empires. This he did so, again with the great help of the Prophet’s general Khalid ‘Sword of God’. Within a few years Islam conquered Jerusalem, Damascus, Persia, Egypt, etc. Umar was especially known for being a just and righteous ruler. Despite the fact that the Islamic empire had expanded very far and successfully, and the wealth of the Roman and Persians was now at the disposal of the Muslims, Umar continued to live the spartan lifestyle and rule strictly in accordance with the Prophet’s teachings that focus on social justice and a simple pure lifestyle. But having conquered Persia, the Persians have always hated Umar. They could not handle the humiliation of their great empire and civilization having been conquered by the ‘lowly’ Arabs. A disgruntled Persian then assassinated Umar in 644 CE. In his last days, Umar appointed a council of the remaining most senior disciples of the Prophet, including Ali but also Uthman and four others. They decided to elect Uthman as the Prophet’s third successor. Now Uthman was a rich person and he belonged to the clan of Umayyads. During his caliphate, he began to appoint members of his own clan to govern the provinces of the empire. For example, he appointed his relative Mu’awiya to be the governor of Syria in Damascus. Hence, many people accused Uthman of nepotism, especially since the governors he appointed were not particularly known for their piety and justice, and were living lives of luxurious indulgence. Some, like his governor in Kufa, Walid, were very sinful people. Walid once led the prayers in the mosque while intoxicated causing a massive scandal and uproar. Muslims from these provinces having various grievances then converged in the capital Medina and besieged Uthman’s house. They demanded his resignation, but Uthman refused to resign from the caliphate, which by now was regarded as a lifetime appointment. He feared that by doing so a dangerous precedent would be set. When he refused to resign the caliphate, the mob broke into his home and ended up murdering him in 656 CE. Thus began the first internal dissension or civil war in Islam known as the First Fitna.

After the assassination of Uthman, the Muslim community was in a state of disarray because the assassins were not apostates or non-Muslims, but Muslims themselves. This was the first time Muslims had drawn the sword against other Muslims. It was a shock for the nascent community to have their leader assassinated by other Muslims. Most of the people of Medina, including many of the mob that had assassinated Uthman, came to Ali and forced him to accept their pledge of allegiance to become the caliph and fourth successor of the Prophet. However, this time a large number of Muslims refused to accept Ali’s election so it wasn’t unanimous. The Prophet’s wife, Aisha, and some other his senior disciples, demanded that before a successor could be elected, the murderers of Uthman must be brought to justice. Likewise, Mu’awiya, who was in Damascus having been appointed as governor there by Uthman, was calling for revenge. He had gotten hold of the bloodied garment of Uthman and began taking out processions in Damascus displaying the garment and stoking up emotions. Mu’awiya, as mentioned earlier, was from the same clan as Uthman, the Umayyads. The Umayyad clan were initially the most bitter opponents of the Prophet during his early ministry. The Prophet belonged to the Hashemite clan, as did Ali who was now elected as caliph by a great faction of Muslims in Medina. The Hashemites and Umayyads always had a strong rivalry even before Islam. Therefore, Mu’awiya refused to accept the caliphate of Ali and pledge allegiance to him. Ali began replacing Uthman’s governors and even sent a replacement for Mu’awiya, but by this time Syria was completely under control of Mu’awiya, so Ali couldn’t establish his authority there. Ali also found it difficult to establish control over Medina because not everyone was uniting behind him. Aisha was leading the campaign to punish the murderers of Uthman, and many of those rebels had blended in with the followers of Ali. Ali then made the strategic decision to shift to Kufa in Iraq and establish that garrison town as the new capital of the caliphate. Ali’s forces went to battle with Aisha’s forces near the town of Basra in the Battle of the Camel, so named because Aisha herself came seated on a camel. Aisha’s forces suffered a decisive defeat. But Ali wanted to reconcile with them, and so had Aisha returned with dignity to Medina. Aisha repented from her actions and never again became involved in public affairs. However, Mu’awiya, who was in a much stronger position, still needed to be subdued. So the next war between Ali and Mu’awiya began known as Siffin.

The Battle of Siffin in 657 CE was another watershed moment in early Islamic history. On one side was the Prophet’s legitimate fourth successor Ali, and on the other side Mu’awiya in Damascus. Mu’awiya faught against Ali in the name of avenging the murder of Uthman, while Ali sought to stabilize the community and restore the situation to what it was before. According to Ali’s thinking, first the situation should be stabilized and law and order restored which could not happen without the caliphate being accepted. Only then when the situation was calm would he deal with the matter of Uthman’s murder. In the Battle of Siffin, Ali’s forces were on the verge of a decisive victory, until Mu’awiya was advised by one of his advisers to seek arbitration. This plea was dramatized by Mu’awiya’s forces placing pages of the Qur’an on their spears “let the Qur’an judge between us”. Ali was reluctant to call a ceasefire and agree to arbitration, especially at this late stage. He knew that Mu’awiya’s side was trying to delay and and save its jeopardized position. Nevertheless, Ali was pressured into accepting this arbitration. However, he initially wanted his cousin Abd Allah son of Abbas (the Prophet’s uncle Abbas I mentioned earlier) to represent him at the arbitration, but Ali’s camp was fragile and there were many insincere people there who would not allow Ali to choose a relative as his representative. They pressured him to select Abu Musa al-Ashari as his representative instead. In the arbitration, Abu Musa al-Ashari was outwitted in to accepting that both Ali and Mu’awiya should be set aside and the community given the opportunity to select a new caliph. Feeling betrayed, yet another dissension occurred in Ali’s camp. A new faction emerged called the Kharijites, from the word ‘Khawarij’ meaning those who exit. The Kharijites were historically the first sect to depart from the Muslim mainstream with separatist tendencies and peculiar doctrines and practices that distinguished them from the early community of Muslims including the Prophet’s own disciples.

Coming back to the Kharijites, they immediately split away from Ali’s camp after initially being on his side. They declared that Ali had committed apostasy by agreeing to arbitration. Their slogan was based on a verse of the Qur’an “the decision is for none but God”. According to the Kharijites, by failing to judge in accordance with the Qur’an and by agreeing to arbitration with Mu’awiya, Ali had become an infidel (God forbid). The Kharijites were outwardly extremely pious. They were excessively devoted to reading the Qur’an. They departed Ali’s camp and set up another camp in a place called Nahrawan. When Ali sent his cousin Abd Allah son of Abbas (whom I mentioned earlier) to debate with these Kharijites, when the former entered their camp he heard a loud buzzing similar to a hive of bees which was in fact the Kharijite congregation intensely mass reading the Qur’an. So outwardly they were very pious. They kept their heads shaven and their were marks on their foreheads from the excessive prostration and worship. Nevertheless, they were gone astray because of their little knowledge. Despite being in the thousands, there wasn’t a single disciple or companion of the Prophet among their ranks. The Kharijites soon became violent and murdered an innocent Muslim couple after interrogating them about their beliefs in minute detail. Ali was initially disposed to ignoring this faction, despite their abuse of him and rejection of his leadership as long as they remained nonviolent. But after they had murdered a Muslim couple that happened to be travelling (the woman was pregnant and her unborn child was also murdered), Ali was forced to take action to crush this new rebellion. Hence Ali’s camp decisively defeated the Kharijites in the Battle of Nahrawan in 659 CE. Only a handful of Kharijites escaped. Among them was a man named Abdal Rahman bin Muljim. Ibn Muljim made a plot with a few other Kharijites who survived Nahrawan. They formed the first ‘terrorist cell’ in Mecca where they had regrouped. In revenge for Nahrawan, they plotted to assassinate Ali, Mu’awiya, and Mu’awiya’s governor in Egypt, Amr (who was Mu’awiya’s representative at the arbitration). While Mu’awiya was only slightly injured in the attack on him in Damascus, Ibn Muljim snuck into Kufa, had a sword laced with poison, and struck at Ali’s head while the latter was in prostration during the pre-dawn prayer. Ali was thus martyred in 661 CE. Thus out of the first four successors of the Prophet, three of them were murdered, two of them by other Muslims.

Now Imam Ali, who married the Prophet’s beloved daughter Fatima, had two sons, Hasan and Hussain (maternal grandsons of the Prophet). The Prophet cherished both of these grandsons and was very attached to them. When Ali was assassinated he was succeeded by his eldest son Hasan. Hasan remained as the fifth successor for about six months, but then agreed to cease the war with Mu’awiya by resigning from his position and pledging allegiance to Mu’awiya. Thus ended the ‘Rightly-Guided’ Caliphate which lasted for exactly thirty years after the Prophet died.Mu’awiya, based in Damascus, as mentioned earlier, was part of the Umayyad clan. Now his rule became established over the entire Islamic empire and the Umayyad dynasty began. Breaking with the Sunni tradition of electing a leader most qualified to lead the Muslims through consultation, Mu’awiya designated his own son Yazid to succeed him. Yazid was well known to be an immoral man and a drunkard. When Mu’awiya died in 680 CE, Yazid wanted to ensure that there would be no challenge to his succession given his bad reputation among the Muslim community. Yazid sent his cousin Marwan son of Hakam (who will be discussed later) to ensure that his governor in Medina acquired the pledge of allegiance from Hussain (Hasan’s younger brother – by this time Hasan had already died), from Abdullah the son of Umar (the second caliph) and from Abdullah the son of Zubair (a senior disciple of the Prophet was died in the Battle of the Camel). These three were the senior most leaders in piety and position in the Muslim community so Yazid knew it was essential to coerce them into pledging allegiance to him in order to secure his rule. While Umar’s son Abd Allah pledged allegiance to Yazid, the other two including Husain left Medina for Mecca and refused to give allegiance to an immoral person like Yazid.Meanwhile, the people of Kufa were eager to invite Husain to return to Kufa and lead them. They wrote countless letters to him to this effect inviting him to Kufa to become their leader. Husain was at first suspicious because he knew the people of Kufa had given his own father a hard time and weren’t a people who kept their word. Therefore, he sent his cousin Muslim son of Aqil (Aqil was Ali’s older brother) to Kufa to examine the situation and report back to him. Muslim went to Kufa and initially was well received by the elders of the town. They pledged allegiance to Husain through his agency. Muslim then wrote to Hussain to make haste to Kufa as the people there were ready to accept him.

Yazid, fearing a rebellion was brewing in Kufa, decided to replace the governor of the town with a harsh man named Ubaid Allah son of Ziyad. Upon arrival in Kufa, this new governor immediately began bribing the elders of Kufa and threatening those with severe consequences if they didn’t stop their activities in favor of Husain. Hence Muslim found himself betrayed by the frightened people of Kufa who feared retaliation from the Umayyads and their vicious governor. Muslim was abandoned by himself and took refuge in an old woman’s home. She tried to hide him knowing her son wasn’t trustworthy. The old woman’s son discerned that Muslim was hiding in his house. He didn’t say anything to his mother but went straight to the governor to acquire the bounty for reporting Muslim’s whereabouts who at this point was a fugitive. Immediately Muslim was discovered and surrounded by the governor’s troops. Though he faught a valiant battle he was vastly outnumbered being only one person and was martyred. Not being aware of this new turn of events, Hussain had already set off in a journey with 72 close friends and relatives, including women and little children for Kufa to assume the leadership.

The Prophet’s beloved grandson had set off for Kufa with a caravan of 72 relatives and close allies, including little children. They were martyred at a place called Karbala when they were intercepted by Yazid’s army. Hussain himself was martyred on the 10th of Muharram, known as Ashura, a holy day in Islam which corresponds to Yom Kippur in the Jewish tradition (10th of Tishrei). The tale of the battle itself is very emotional but highlights the distinction between good and evil, as Hussain and his companions were denied water, Hussain’s own infant son murdered before his eyes. Hussain’s son Ali known as Zain-ul-Abidin ‘the Jewel of Worshipers’ happened to be bedridden during the battle proper and hence was taken prisoner to Damascus along with the womenfolk, placed in heavy chains and dragged about the city as the shameless Damascenes celebrated their ‘victory’. Hussain’s severed head was presented to Yazid. According to Shi’ite tradition Yazid tapped the teeth of Hussain with his staff and arrogantly proclaimed that revenge was finally achieved for the Battle of Badr, the first battle of Islam when the Prophet had defeated his pagan forefathers and clansmen in 624 CE.The martyrdom of the Prophet’s own grandson at the hands of people claiming to be Muslim, under the orders of Yazid who was enthroned in Damascus living an immoral life of luxury and indulgence shocked the conscience of the Muslim world. Immediately the Muslims in Mecca, under the leadership of Abd Allah son of Zubair began an uprising. Abd Allah son of Zubair was proclaimed caliph.

Alarmed about Abd Allah son of Zubair uprising in the Hijaz (western Arabia) in the sacred towns of Mecca and Medina, Yazid sent an army from Syria of ten thousand soldiers to crush the revolt. The Battle of Harra in 683 CE near Medina resulted in a victory for the Umayyads. The Syrian army of Yazid looted the sacred town of Medina for three days, a major desecration given its religious sanctity. Immediately thereafter the Syrian forces proceeded to Mecca and sieges the sacred city. Their siege attacks resulted in the Ka’ba, the most sacred shrine in Islam, being engulfed in flames. The the siege ended abruptly when it was learned that Yazid had suddenly died. Yazid’s unexpected and premature death breathed new life into Ibn Zubair’s revolt and resulted in disarray for the Umayyad forces. Ibn Zubair was proclaimed caliph throughout the Muslim world, and was able to send various governs to govern the provinces including Kufa in Iraq, Egypt, and a great part of Syria. For a while it seemed as though the scourge of the Umayyads would finally end.

Meanwhile, the people of Kufa were still reeling from the shock of Imam Hussain’s martyrdom. One of the Prophet’s disciples, Suleman son of Surad, who was among the elders of Kufa that had originally enthusiastically invited Imam Hussain to come to Kufa, felt remorse for having not come to Hussain’s aid. He led a movement in Kufa known as the Tawwabin ‘Penitents’ to atone for their sin of having abandoned Hussain at his hour of need. They invoked the example of the Israelites who had to use the sword to expiate their collective sin of having worshiped the golden calf. Thus Suleman and his followers made up their minds to fight with the Umayyads hoping to achieve martyrdom and thus atone for their sin. This they did achieve at the Battle of Ain Warda in 685 CE. Though only 5,000 in strength, the Penitents were met by a massive Umayyad force of 20,000, led by their fierce general Husain son of Numair (who had also been in charge of the siege of Mecca two years earlier). They were totally decimated by the Umayyads and thus achieved their purpose of atoning for their sin of having abandoned Imam Hussain and not coming to his aid.

The Failure of the Pakistan Project

نحمده ونصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم

والعاقبة للمتقين

The Two Nation Theory and it’s central concept of ‘Muslim nationalism’ has gradually morphed into what I call ‘Pakistani nationalism’. The Pakistani State, dominated by the military and the feudalists, very quickly realized a peril of ‘Muslim nationalism’ namely the religious element. That is because fundamentally Islam is a religion which very much espouses the principles of social justice and is strongly opposed to accumulation of capital motivated by greed. This is perhaps best illustrated in the activities and preaching of the Prophet’s illustrious companion and disciple, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (Allah be pleased with him), who put forward a very strong emphasis on the Verse:

 

وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

And there are those who amass gold and silver and do not spend it in the Way of Allah. Announce to them the tidings of a painful chastisement

(Sura 9: 34)

Furthermore, the Holy Qur’an is a scathing assault on Pharaonic authoritarianism, and this is definitely something that Pakistan’s military establishment was on some level conscious of and very anxious about. At the same time, the immediate threats to the sustainability of Pakistan, especially in its early years, were the various movements of ethnic nationalism and separatism, especially from the Pakhtuns (Pathans), the Baloch and even the Sindhis. The only ideological tool to strengthen the idea of Pakistan, a state created on the basis of religion, was to further emphasize the universality and dynamism of Islam. Hence the establishment have till this day always been mired in this dilemma of injecting a dosage of Islam into the public discourse from time to time in order to keep the ethnic separatists and leftists at bay, while trying to ensure that the dosage isn’t excessive in order to keep a check on the threat of Islamic “fundamentalism”. For the longest time, the “Deep State” was able to control and co-opt the hardline Islamic movements and sentiments to its benefit, especially in the context of the Kashmir and Afghanistan conflicts. However, beginning with in the Musharraf era, the State began preparing a new narrative and conspired to diminish the influence of even those Islamic movements and groups which it had co-opted and even nurtured. More puritanical Islamic movements, like the Taliban, emerged in Afghanistan and particularly the Pashtun belt which had a flavor of anti-Statism. This was the real threat to the Pakistani State, which was unable to combat such sentiments on an intellectual level given the State’s own corruption and deviation from Islam. It was only when such zealous movements made a fatal blunder and adapted tactics of terrorism under the influence of al-Qa’ida and the radical Takfiri ideology from the Arab world that this resulted in them becoming totally discredited to the benefit of the State. But rather than reforming itself to be more in line with Islamic ideals and principles, the State began promoting a brand of Pakistani nationalism based on origin in the land of what is now Pakistan and pride in the Pakistani State, particularly its “glorious” armed forces and being a nuclear-armed power, i.e., civic nationalism. The State in fact became more obsessed with security and as a result much more authoritarian than ever before. The new narrative has astonishingly resulted in the very abrupt decline of various religious movements and their marginalization. Coupled with increased emphasis on Western-style liberal education, the forces of religion are facing an uphill battle to stay relevant at least among the masses. That Muslims have always had a tendency to be in awe of power and the iron fist of the State is very well understood by the elitist ruling class. Being the most powerful institution by far, the State exerts an undue influence on the Muslim mind.

Now nationalism is inherently an idea that stands in opposition to the universalism and piety-based structure of monotheistic religion. Nationalism is intimately married with materialism and is overall harmful to spirituality. In the age of identity politics, nationalist sentiments quickly yield a relegation of religion to oblivion. Based on this, I predict that the Islamic movement, in the vaguest sense possible, has no future in Pakistan. All the dreams and hopes of various Islamic intellectuals, from a generation that is quickly dying off, have been dashed. If their forebears played an active role in the creation of Pakistan for the purpose of fulfilling the Islamic vision of a polity, all of their sacrifices have been rendered vain.

Variation of Shahada: Ahmad is the Messenger of Allah

The first pillar of Islam is the Shahada, or testimony of faith “I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and apostle.” By simply testifying to these two things, a person enters into Islam and becomes a Muslim. Of course, one must do so sincerely and believe in these two testimonies in the heart, otherwise they are faithless hypocrites or pretenders in the sight of Allah. Some Muslims have the rigid view that the Shahadatain is only valid if read in Arabic, and that even the slightest variation or alteration of the formula is a sort of blasphemy. The Shi’a add a third testimony to the Shahada “I bear witness that Ali is the Wali (saint) of Allah, the Wasi (executor of the will) of the Apostle of Allah, and his immediate successor.” Some rigid Sunnis consider this third testimony as a heresy that nullifies a person’s faith in Islam. However, a more nuanced view is that the Shi’ite testimony “I bear witness that Ali is the Wali of Allah” is believed in by Sunnis and most other Muslims too, with the exception of the wretched but insignificant Nasiba sect (those who bear enmity to Ali and the Ahl-al-Bayt). However, the testimony that “Ali is the Wali of Allah” while certainly true, is nevertheless not an Article of Faith, nor is its testimony a condition for the acceptance of Islam. The Holy Qur’an and Sunna of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is altogether empty of such a testimony. Therefore, if a person testifies that “Ali is the Wali of Allah”, there is no problem with such a testimony, since it is true though not an Article of Faith. If a person reads it intending it as part of the Shahada through which a person enters Islam or refreshes their faith, it will be considered an innovation, but not a heresy. As for the testimony that Ali is the Prophet’s immediate successor [Khalīfatuhu Bilā Fasl], this is incorrect from the standard Islamic point of view of Ahlus Sunna (Sunni Muslims), because we hold that the Prophet’s immediate successor was Abu Bakr, while Ali was the Prophet’s fourth successor (Allah be pleased with them both). However, in the view of Ahlus Sunna, this is not an article of faith but rather a historical reality. It is only the Imamiya Shi’a who consider the issue of succession to the Prophet to be a theological matter and an article of faith. So if someone testifies that Ali is the Prophet’s immediate successor, such a person is obviously not a Sunni, but at the same time, they are not excluded from Islam since such a testimony is not tantamount to any heresy or kufr.

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself taught a variation of the Shahada with extra wording, illustrating that there is no fixed or definite formula, but that if the essential Articles of Faith, particularly the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad are confessed to that is sufficient for a person to be considered a faithful Muslim. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

 

مَنْ شَهِدَ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ، وَأَنَّ عِيسَى عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولُهُ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ وَالْجَنَّةُ حَقٌّ وَالنَّارُ حَقٌّ أَدْخَلَهُ اللَّهُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى مَا كَانَ مِنَ الْعَمَلِ

“Whoever bears witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, alone without any partner for Him, and that Muhammad is His servant and apostle, and that Jesus is the servant of Allah, His apostle, and His Word which He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him, and that Janna (Paradise) is real and the Hellfire is real, Allah shall enter him into Paradise upon whatever from his deeds.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

 So we can see that in this version of the Shahada, the Prophet (peace be upon him) added testimony concerning Jesus and the reality of Heaven and Hell. However, the essential Shahada, or more precisely the Shahadatain, is to bear witness to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Now the question arises whether the name ‘Muhammad’ can be substituted by the name ‘Ahmad’ or another descriptive name of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Rigid Sunnis may even consider such an alteration of the Kalima al-Shahada as tantamount to blasphemy, but this is due to ignorance.

 

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sent his noble emissary, Dihya b. Khalifa (Allah be pleased with him) with the letter inviting Caesar Heraclius to embrace faith in him as God’s final prophet, Heraclius said: “Alas, by God, I know that your master is a prophet who has been sent and that he is the one whom we have been awaiting and whom we find in our book, but I am mortally afraid of the Romans; but for that, I would follow him. Go to Daghatir the bishop, and tell him of the affair of your master; for he, by God, is greater among the Romans than I, and his word has more authority with them. See what he says to you.” So Dihya went to Daghatir and told him what he had brought to Heraclius from the Messenger of God and to what he was summoning him. Daghatir said: “Your master, by God, is a prophet who has been sent. We know him by his description, and we find him by name in our books.” Daghatir then went inside, laid off the black robes he was wearing, put on white ones, took his staff, and came out before the Romans while they were in the church. “People of Rome,” he said, “a letter has come to us from Ahmad, summoning us to God.

 

وَإِنِّي أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللَّهُ ، وَأَنَّ أَحْمَدَ عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ

I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Ahmad is His servant and His messenger.”

 

As one man they leaped up, attacked him, and beat him to death.

(The History of al-Tabari; Volume VIII, pp. 105—106)

 The martyrdom of the illustrious holy man, Daghatir, is an example of a true Shahada, but notice his substitution of the name ‘Muhammad’ with ‘Ahmad’, since Ahmad is the second of the Prophet’s personal names. Hence, to alter the Kalima or the Shahada by substituting ‘Muhammad’ with ‘Ahmad’ is definitely correct and permissible, and the Muslims should revive this Sunna of such great martyrs of Islam as Daghatir (Allah be pleased with him).

Rafidi Shiite Blasphemy of Prophet عليه السلام

The deplorable cult of the Rafida cannot be considered a religion, because it is nothing more than cursing, abusing and mocking the Prophet’s (alayhis-salām) beloved companions and disciples, particularly his esteemed wives, whom the Holy Qur’an refers to as ‘Mothers of the Believers’ (Sura 33: 6). For instance, a cursed Rafidi Shi’ite mulla, “Sayyid” Ali Gharawi, had the audacity to state that the genitals of the beloved Prophet (alayhis-salām) is in the Fire because he had relations with wives who were polytheists, meaning, A’isha and Hafsa (radī Allāhu anhumā):

 

قال السيد علي غروي أحد أكبر العلماء في الحوزة: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وآله لا بُدَّ أن يَدْخُلَ فَرْجُه النار, لأنَّه وَطِئَ بَعضَ المشركات يريد بذلك زوجه من عائشة وحفصة

 

Reference: Lillah Thumma Lil Tarikh; pp. 21—22

 

 

Now it is not surprising that this is yet another example of how the Rafidi Shi’a shamelessly express their malice towards the Prophet’s own wives. But what is absolutely shocking and disgusting is how this evil and cursed mulla has committed blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (alayhis-salām), and hence repudiated his faith in Islam and became an apostate who will most definitely himself be burning in the fire of Hell for eternity. May Allah Most High save us from such a fate (Amīn)

Non-Muslims are Unclean

نحمده ونصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم

والعاقبة للمتقين

Allah Most High says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـٰذَا

O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year

(Sura 9: 28)

The word Najas from the Arabic consonantal root ن–ج–س connotes: “filth, defilement, desecration, profanity, to soil”. The word itself means: “defilement, profanity, desecration”, which is why perhaps a more accurate translation of the Ayah is: “…the polytheists are a defilement – do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage p. 918)

Keeping this more nuanced meaning of the word ‘Najas’ in mind, the reader should dismiss the notion that what is being referred to here is bodily hygiene. Rather, the polytheist non-Muslims being ‘Najas’ signifies the fact that they are ritually impure, a defilement, and that their presence in the Sacred Mosque would be a sort of desecration. As for bodily hygiene, there can be no question that there may be many non-Muslim polytheists who try their best to keep physically clean, but of course that isn’t the point of them being described as ‘Najas’. Nevertheless, the fact that the non-Muslim polytheists tend not to bathe as a religious act in order to remove the ‘impurity’ known as Janaba that occurs after sexual emission or intercourse has been referred to by Imam Qatada b. Di’ama (d. 118 H) as a reason for them being described as ‘Najas’ in his interpretation of this Verse of the Holy Qur’an, hence forbidden from approaching the Sacred Mosque:

حدثنا محمد بن عبد الأعلى، قال: ثنا محمد بن ثور، عن معمر، في قوله: { إنَّمَا المُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ }: لا أعلم قتادة إلا قال: النجَس: الجنابة

حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة، في قوله: { يا أيُّها الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إنَّمَا المُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ }: أي أجناب

(Tafsir Ibn Jarir)

Now does the Qur’anic promulgation banning the non-Muslim polytheists from being in the proximity of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca apply to other, ordinary mosques also? Imam Abdur Rahman al-Awza’i (707 – 774 CE), a great jurist and founder of the Awza’i madhhab (school of jurisprudence) named after him, wrote a letter to the pious Umayyad caliph Umar b. Abdul Aziz (682 – 720 CE) instructing him to forbid the Jews and Christians from entering the mosques of the Muslims in accordance with the Verse “…verily, the polytheists are unclean…”:

حدثنا عبد الكريم بن أبي عمير، قال: ثني الوليد بن مسلم، قال: ثنا أبو عمرو: أن عمر بن عبد العزيز كتب: أن امنعوا اليهود والنصارى من دخول مساجد المسلمين وأتبع في نهيه قول الله: { إنَّمَا المُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ }

(Ibid)

وأخرج أبو الشيخ عن الأوزاعي رضي الله عنه قال: كتب عمر بن عبد العزيز رضي الله عنه أن يمنع أن يدخل اليهود والنصارى المساجد، وأتبع نهيه { إنما المشركون نجس }

(Durr al-Manthur)

According to the Shari’a, if a Muslim is in a state of janaba or ritual impurity caused by sexual emission or intercourse, they are forbidden from entering the Mosque until they have performed ghusl (a full ritual bath). So then how can a non-Muslim be allowed to enter a mosque since they tend not to perform a full bath with the intention of removing the impurity known as the state of ‘janaba’? This is why Imam Qatada connected the Najasa ‘impurity’ of the non-Muslim to ‘Janaba’ and why Imam al-Awza’i wrote to the caliph Umar b. Abdul Aziz instructing him to forbid Jews and Christians from entering a mosque.

Now most learned authorities, especially among the Sunnis, interpret the ‘Najasa’ of the polytheists as mentioned in this Verse as referring to an inner or spiritual impurity, and not the kind of physical impurity such as that associated with unclean animals like the pig or dog. Nevertheless, Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 H) wrote in his monumental Tafsir:

وقال آخرون : معنى ذلك : ما المشركون إلا رجس خنزير أو كلب .

وهذا قول روي عن ابن عباس من وجه غير حميد ، فكرهنا ذكره

Others said: That means the polytheists are naught but unclean [as] a swine or dog. And this saying has been narrated from Ibn Abbas from a dispraised source, so we dislike mentioning it (Tafsir Ibn Jarir)

It was narrated from the great Imam al-Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) (d. 110 H) that he instructed Muslims not to shake hands with the non-Muslim polytheists, but if a Muslim happened to have done so, they should perform Wudu’:

حدثنا ابن وكيع قال : حدثنا ابن فضيل ، عن أشعث ، عن الحسن : ( إنما المشركون نجس ) ، قال : لا تصافحوهم ، فمن صافحهم فليتوضأ

Likewise, there are some weak and suspect narrations where the Prophet ﷺ himself has said that after having hand shaked with a non-Muslim polytheist a Muslim should perform ‘Wudu’ or simply wash his palm, and a story that the Angel Gabriel onced refused to touch the hand of the Prophet ﷺ since he had shaken hands with a Jew, until the Prophet ﷺ called for water and performed ‘Wudu’. However, if it is so that ‘Najasa’ or impurity of the non-Muslim polytheist is a physical impurity similar to that of unclean animals like a pig or dog, and not merely an inner, spiritual impurity, then it is not necessary that by merely touching or coming into physical contact with a non-Muslim polytheist that a Muslim himself becomes impure. For instance, merely touching a dog, an unclean animal, does not make a person impure, unless a trace of moisture or wetness of the dog, such as its saliva, has gotten onto a person’s body or clothing. In such a case a Muslim is instructed to remove the impurity by washing it off with water. Therefore, merely shaking hands with a non-Muslim polytheist, since no moisture or wetness from the non-Muslim is transferred to the Muslim, does not render the Muslim impure and in need of washing, ‘Wudu’ or ‘Ghusl’. But what if somehow moisture or wetness from a non-Muslim’s body, such as saliva or mucus, was transferred to a Muslim’s body or clothing? In such a scenario, the Muslim would have to wash off the traces of impurity from the non-Muslim from his body or clothing in order to return to a state of purity. A Muslim whose body or clothing has been soiled with any trace of impurity cannot offer the Salat until those traces have been removed through cleansing thoroughly, i.e. washing it off with water. This would be the ruling if indeed the position, held by a minority of learned authorities in the world of Islam, is correct that the impurity of the non-Muslim polytheist is not merely an inner impurity but a physical impurity like that of unclean animals.

Yet, this is not merely a jurisprudential issue, but also a psychological and religious one. In other words, Muslims demonstrate their disdain for the impurity of Shirk (polytheism or idolatry) by disassociating themselves from the pagan polytheists to such an extent that they begin to regard the latter as physically impure, refusing even to touch them unless absolutely necessary, and even then performing a ritual washing as an expression of piety, zeal for the Oneness of God, and disgust with idolatry and those who indulge in it. Hence, such an attitude becomes pleasing to Allah Most High, since the Muslim is demonstrating his strong commitment to Islam and Tawhid (monotheism) in a very zealous manner, one in which the polytheist non-Muslim may be made to feel inferior and humiliated because of his polytheism and idolatry. Likewise, such an attitude obviously reinforces a sense of separation and disassociation that the Muslims should have with regard to the non-Muslim polytheists. Among the probable proofs for this view that the impurity of the non-Muslim is physical is the Hadith:

أَمَّا مَا ذَكَرْتَ أَنَّكَ بِأَرْضِ أَهْلِ كِتَابٍ فَلاَ تَأْكُلُوا فِي آنِيَتِهِمْ، إِلاَّ أَنْ لاَ تَجِدُوا بُدًّا، فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا بُدًّا فَاغْسِلُوهَا وَكُلُوا

The Prophet ﷺ said, “As for your saying that you are in the land of People of the Scripture, you should not eat in their utensils unless you find no alternative, in which case you must wash the utensils and then eat in them.” (Sahih al-Bukhari #5496)

This Hadith is a clear proof that the utensils of the Jews and Christians are not suitable for eating and drinking from since they are ritually unclean people, i.e. ‘Najas’, and that if a Muslim has no other alternative, he must first thoroughly wash and cleanse such utensils before eating or drinking from them. Likewise, this rule applies to all other non-Muslim polytheists apart from Jews and Christians, such as the Magians:

عَنْ أَبِي ثَعْلَبَةَ، قَالَ سُئِلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ قُدُورِ الْمَجُوسِ فَقَالَ أَنْقُوهَا غَسْلاً وَاطْبُخُوا فِيهَا ‏

Narrated Abu Tha’labah Al-Khushani: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about the pots of Zoroastrians [Magians]. He said: “Clean them by washing them, and then cook in them.” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi #1796)

And this is similar to how, in the well-known Hadith, the Prophet ﷺ commanded that the utensil that was used by an unclean animal be washed, in the case of a dog, seven times. He ﷺ also instructed that the pots in which the meat of donkeys was being cooked on the day of Khaybar be broken since the meat of donkeys was unclean and hence declared forbidden. But when the people asked, the Prophet gave them a concession to wash the pots instead of breaking them. (Sahih al-Bukhari) Therefore, the aforementioned Hadith about washing the utensils of the Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians) before using them is a proof that these non-Muslim polytheists are to be considered as physically impure as unclean animals. And Allah knows best.