What’s the view of Ahmadiyya concerning Shias? Please you can sit here. Already I have expressed my views on this question in fundamentals because there is so much to argue about between the Shia world and Sunni world in general and also Ahmadiyya point of view with regards to their debate in between that it would require ages to finish all that debate which comprises which is spread over last about 12 centuries or so 13 centuries maybe.
So instead of going into that detail which is anyway of no avail to us I’ll explain why I speak on this subject in principles from the philosophical point of view. Why this debate is futile and useless is because the Shias would prefer to treat their traditions more respectfully and then the traditions as quoted by the Sunni ulema and the vice versa is also true. If I quote a tradition from a Sunni ulema, alim, which contradicts the Shia philosophy or Shia doctrine anyway, it is so easy for a Shia to produce a counter tradition, countering that evidence from the Sunni treasure of traditions, you know, plentiful of traditions on all subjects.
So one for one or two for one could be produced from the pocket of each opponent. The result would be that it would be just a useless effort, a meaningless exercise to go into debate with each other by somebody quoting a Hadith supporting his view from Sunni traditions and other Shia quoting another Hadith from his own traditions opposing the subject of the previous Hadith and so on. So it’s useless. Moreover in the last 1400 years, so much darkness has fallen on these subjects because of hatred, because of malice, because of even battles fought between Shias and Sunnis, because of false people appearing under the garb of holy men sometimes and spreading falsehood against their enemies from both sides, that the whole issue is obscured now.
It is very difficult for us to see the light of truth penetrating through the dark ages of 1400 years. Not all of them were dark of course, but the 1100 years which are on our side were of course ages of darkness compared to the first three centuries closer to our Huzoor. So all this issue makes the debate extremely unreliable to say the least. My attitude is completely different. It is not based on traditions. Why I do not become a Shia, that is the question. I am telling you, because in my opinion, if I accept Shiaism, I can’t do it without being disrespectful to the Holy Prophet of Islam and also to the message of Islam, that is the Holy Qur’an.
And without contradicting the fundamental features of the Prophet’s advantage over other prophets, and without contradicting the fundamental teachings of the Holy Qur’an, giving advantage to the teaching of this book over the teaching of the rest of the books of the world. So far I have not illustrated, so you are confused. I am going to explain further, step by step. The greatest tribute we pay to the Holy Prophet of Islam, not from ourselves but as dictated in the Holy Qur’an, is that he enlarged the field of his beneficence from the Arab world to the rest of the world as well.
Previous to him, the prophets were either tribal or regional, and their benefits flowed from them to their own people. They were not for the entire world. The result was, as we see in the Holy Qur’an, Jesus Christ is referred to as Rasul-un-ila-Bani-Isra’il. He was a prophet who benefited a particular race that is referred to as Bani-Isra’il. Ansar-Sallallahu-Alaihi-Wa-Sallam, the founder of Islam, came to broaden all this, to destroy all the barriers, with the result that the Holy Qur’an refers to him as Rahmat-un-lil-Aalameen. Rasul-un- not-ila-Bani-Isra’il, but to the Naas-ul-Jameeah, the whole mankind. Ya ayyuha-n-naas-u-inni-Rasul-ul-Allah-e-Ilaikum-Jameeah.
So that means that the trend in Islam is for broadening the beneficence of prophethood and the favours which may flow from prophethood to the rest of the world. Any philosophy based on narrowing that and reversing that process is unacceptable to me. Now, as I understand the Shia philosophy, if I am correct, they say that his favours were not even for the entire Arabs, not only for his first companions, unlimitedly, but his favours were narrowed for his own personal family. And he came to create leadership, spiritual leadership for his own progeny. If he had no son, he would have progeny through his daughter.
The result would be that the Imamate, from then on, would remain confined for all times to come, to his own personal progeny. And the rest of mankind is only mentioned as if, in the Holy Qur’an, by way of mollification or, you know, winning them over, and saying, well, this is the Rasul common for you, his benefit would flow without any barriers to East as well as to the West. But in reality, what he has done is, he has seen to it, according to the Shia philosophy as I understand, that from then on, Imamate and the very best of Nema would remain entirely confined to his progeny and to none else will it ever be granted.
This is, to my mind, is most obnoxious. I can’t accept it. The second point is, no, it’s not a debate, I’m telling you, you are asking a question, whether you like it or not, I must be very honest, I must be very honest with my answer. First let me finish. Secondly, it is again a reflection upon the Holy Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly tells us, repeatedly, that Allah does not care for blood relationship. That Allah doesn’t care for racial superiorities or family superiorities. What he cares for is the quality of your fear of Allah. So whatever favours he is going to bestow upon you are to be judged by your quality of taqwa and by nothing else.
So any artificial barrier created in the way of this general principle is, to my mind, un-Qur’anic and un-Islamic barrier. Any philosophy based on this is, to my mind, is a rejectable philosophy. Secondly again, the Holy Qur’an quotes it by way of example and makes us understand that the blood relationship would not be of any avail to you because he quotes the example of Hazrat Noah’s son. Why should Allah bring to disrepute one of his prophets and a prophet of that status as Hazrat Noah was?
A very special prophet he was and all over the world he is highly respected. So why should he bring him to disrepute by saying that till the end he went on debating and arguing with Allah the case of his son, who was his son all right because the Holy Qur’an refers him to be as his son. But Allah continues to reject and ultimately uses very harsh language against him. Say, laatukum minal jahileen, behave yourself. What are you doing? You know better who belongs to you and who doesn’t belong to you.
Because he’s not a righteous person so he’s not of your progeny. On the contrary, those who did not have any blood relationship with Allah himself were declared by Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa to belong to his progeny in so many worlds. For example, Hazrat Salman Farsi. He had no blood relationship with the Prophet. No racial relationship either. He was not an Arab. He was from somewhere from Iran, from your country. Later during the battle of the ditch, the Prophet beckoned him to himself and told him to stand in the row of Ahlul Bayt and addressed him as Salman is ours, he’s Ahlul Bayt.
This is why the Shias till today, without any exception, include him in the list of Ahlul Bayt. So to me the Qur’anic message and the Qur’anic principle is so clear that it is like daylight to me. Any contradiction of this principle would naturally be not acceptable to me because I believe in the totality of the Qur’an. Again I do not become a Shia because it is in my opinion disrespectful to Hazrat Ali karamallahu wajhahu for whom I have a very special respect and a very special love to. You’ll be surprised, you think that the Sunnis are disrespectful to him as against the Shias. No, I mean not you. When I address you, please don’t understand me to be addressing you in person.
I’m addressing an imaginary person or a group of persons who belong to a certain doctrine. Yes, I know. But I mean it’s not personalised. What I mean to say is your personal view may differ with the view of the majority. So when it differs you may shake your head by saying, no, this is not my view. But when I quote it as a view of the Shias, I mean it. The Shias do hold this view, even if you do not hold that view, because Shias are again divided in so many sects. And I have had a very large experience of discussing these matters on friendly terms with many Shias belonging to various sects.
There are so many, about 34 Shia sects which have been counted in a book, Al-Milal over Nihal. You can refer to that book and you’ll find those various sects. But Isna Ashri are the major ones, Ismailis are some, and there are so many others. There are Alawis, and there are those who believe in Godhood of Hazrat Ali, even that. Those sects exist in some regions of Syria, even today.
So there are so many. But the fact is, fundamentally, they all agree on the superiority of Hazrat Ali over the rest of the Caliphs, to whom we refer to as Khulafa-e-Rashideen. This is what I’m coming to. The issue is not debatable, because not only one or two sects, all the Shia sects agree on this, that Hazrat Ali, was the first of Caliphs, number one, and an unbroken period of his Caliphate emanated from the time when Allah parted this earth, passed away.
There was an unbroken continuity between the imamate of the Prophet and the imamate of Hazrat Ali. This view and this doctrine is fundamental with all Shias, to my knowledge. Secondly, all Shias believe, to the best of my knowledge, that Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussain, they got their education and teaching from Hazrat Ali, and Hazrat Ali was superior in order to both of his sons. They got their eminence and their excellence from their father, Hazrat Ali. And they are not to be preferred over Hazrat Ali in character, in eminence, in station, and so on and so forth.
These are the two fundamental views which I have in mind, which I am going to enlarge upon presently. The first view is again a disrespectful view to Hazrat Ali, in my mind, regardless of whatever traditions say. If Hazrat Ali was the continuous imam after the Prophet, if he was the Khalifa bila fasil, then he should have the courage to demand that Caliphate. Not just refuse to do bai’at at the hands of Hazrat Abu Bakr, but he should have started his own bai’at. And no Shia authority, even the remotest, can produce the weakest evidence in favor of Hazrat Ali, declaring that he was the first, because he was the first Caliph, so he invited people, common men of Islam, to come and get initiated at his hands. He did not do it. Ali, after the death of Hazrat Abu Bakr, still he did not announce that. Then after the death of Hazrat Umar, he still did not announce.
Then after the death of Hazrat Usman at the end, when he was ultimately chosen by the majority of the people of Medina, then he started initiation at his hands. He was not only one of the bravest, but perhaps after Prophet Muhammad, in the battlefield he was the bravest. The people of the enemy which he killed, and the dangers which he faced during Ghazawat-e-Nabi and during other battles, outshined all others. He was one of the bravest men, he became a legend in bravery. What prevented him from declaring to the people that because he was the Caliph, so they should come and get initiated at his hands? No, no, you don’t believe it, because I assure you, I assure you, I assure you, you are not aware of the facts, because when you go back and discuss this matter with your own ulema, you will be surprised to find that there is not a single Shia tradition. Pardon?
Let me finish. I’ll explain everything, my attitude of course, you have asked this question and this is due to me, to explain what I believe, and this is what I’m doing. The fact is that I have repeatedly asked this question of many Shia scholars, very knowledgeable and highly placed scholars, both in Pakistan and outside, and not a single one has even claimed, not to produce, he has not even claimed that such a tradition does exist among Shias, that having refused the bai’at of Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Ali started his own bai’at. He did not. So it’s very surprising, because those who die without the bai’at of imamat, while imam is there, according to the verdict of the Prophet, and this is not a debatable verdict, this is accepted both by Sunnis and Shias, he dies the death of jahiliyat, the death of kufr.
So many sahaba must have died during that period, and we know they did die, between the passing away of the Prophet and the initiation at the hands of Hazrat Ali, on whose shoulder is their blood? Now when I pose this question to the Shias, they say, you don’t know, difficulties were created in the way, people were sent with firewood and instructions, that if he refuses to give his hand in bai’at to Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, then his house, along with those who occupied the house, would be burnt alive.
Well, I doubt the authenticity of such traditions, personally, but leave it alone, I’m not going to debate this issue as I put forward in the beginning, whatever the pressure, was he not superior to his own sons, in character? Why do you say Hazrat Imam Hussain, was so highly venerable, so highly respectable, he opened a new era of boldness, and courage, for the sake of principles, because according to Shia saying, he gave up his head, chose to give up his head, rather than his hand.
A contrary is said about Hazrat Ali, and we are expected, supposed to believe that, imagine, that Hazrat Ali was inferior in this regard to his own progeny, and he decided ultimately under threat of duress, to give his hand, rather than his head. Would you kindly speak into the microphone, so that the matter is clear? We have, I’ll probably be able to answer, but you may not accept them, but the question that I asked in the beginning was based upon what the Qadianis think about Shias, do they believe that Shias are Muslim, or are not?
Of course they are Muslim. Because that was the main question, that wasn’t supposed to be discussed. I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I think I can’t answer all the questions. Of course you may be, of course every Shia who holds the Shia view, would have some explanation, of course. Maybe you won’t accept them, but why not? Whether you accept my explanation, or reject it, whether I accept or reject your explanation, that is different. Right.
We will be judged severally, by Allah himself. That’s right. Whether our rejection was well-founded, or not. So, I have explained myself. As far as the Shias are concerned, Ahmadiyya point of view is this, that not only Shias, all those who declare themselves to be Muslims, who call themselves to be Muslims, have a right to be treated as Muslims, whether you believe them to be true Muslims in reality or not, that is a different thing. Whether you consider them Kafir within Islam, that is also your own choice.
But you have no right to dispossess them of the fundamental right of declaring themselves Muslims. So, whenever we refer to non-Ahmadis, whether they are Shias or Sunnis, you know, your question should not have been this, that what do you consider of us, Shias, because the question should be whatever you consider other sects of Islam, including Sunnis and Shias.
So, our attitude to all of them is this, that as long as they say Kalima, La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah, as long as they recite this Kalima, as long as they face Kaaba, as long as they believe in the five fundamentals or six fundamentals of faith, and believe in the five practices of Islam. What’s the sixth here? Pardon? Sixth? Yawmul Akhira. Pardon? Akhira. I see. Yawmul Akhira? Yes. That is the sixth one. Yawmul Akhira is including in the five, taqdeer, khair ushaar. According to some traditions, this is also a fundamental faith, to believe in taqdeer e khair ushaar.
So, that was the sixth I referred to as an addition. About the five we have a reference in the Holy Quran. In the sixth we have a reference in the tradition. So, most scholars have accepted it to be a part of fundamental faith. Anyway, if a Muslim meets these requirements, he has every right to call himself a Muslim. So, whenever we refer to non-Ahmadis, we refer to them as non-Ahmadi Muslims. You can read our literature, wherever you will find a reference to non-Ahmadis, you will never find a reference to non-Ahmadis as ghair Muslim.
And whenever we refer to others, not belonging to Islam, we declare them to be non-Muslims. So, that attitude is so clear and so evident, that I wonder why there should be a doubt caused in this regard. Because some people don’t believe that Shias are Muslims at all. They don’t consider Shias as Muslims? At all. I know that. And there are Shias also, who don’t consider the Sunnis as Muslims at all. I know it, I tell you.
There were many Shias, who used to ask this question, Are you a Muslim or are you a Sunni? From Iran. I have come across. You know, once I was visiting the buildings of International Court of Justice. I came across a Shia student, who was very vehement and very enthusiastic about things. And this was his attitude, he said, well, I know only two divines. Muslims, please. Muslim or Sunni. What are you, Ahmadi? You know, he couldn’t understand this. I can’t judge that Shia ideology was beginning as someone who is Shia.
It doesn’t mean anything. No, I mean, there are so many. It is a futile thing to enter into such small, you know, menial debates. I mean, whether they believe or not, that is not important to me. The fact which is important to me is this, that the fundamental human right must be guarded. If somebody considers himself to be a Christian and wants to declare himself as well to be a Christian and doesn’t want to hide this fact, he should have this fundamental right to do so.
And nobody can deprive him from this right, despite the fact that the opponent also has a right to believe him to be not a true Christian. So, this debate is not as simple as that. Now, suppose I believe that, with the views which I have just discussed, a Shia holding such views contradicts so many fundamentals of Islam that I don’t think he is truly a Muslim. If I genuinely hold this belief, I should also have a right to do that. Still, I cannot dispossess you of your fundamental right. No, I can’t.
Because whether I believe you to be a Muslim or not, that is immaterial. The point which is immaterial is this, that you should have a right to declare yourself to be a Muslim and you must not be deprived of that right. You should not be treated in a Muslim society or in a Muslim country as non-Muslim. Because you say you are a Muslim. So, when I say that I have a right to consider you otherwise, I only mean, with this qualification, that that only means that, in my opinion, when you die and when you appear before God, because your views on Islam have become corrupted, according to me, then Allah will treat you as someone who had deviated from the true path of Islam.
That is the only meaning. And this meaning is supported by a tradition of the Holy Prophet of Islam, which again is a tradition which is not disputable. It is said that when Huzoor-e-Akram would appear on Hauz-e-Kausar, that eternal fountain of bliss, there would be people who would be carried away from among the Muslims, towards hell. The Holy Prophet of Islam would look at them and protest, by saying, Ashabi, Ashabi, they are my companions, my companions. This is his knowledge about them, but the knowledge of Allah is otherwise.
He says, yes, they were companions, but you don’t know what they did afterwards and what acts they indulged in later on. So that gives me a limelight. The fact is that whatever they did, after the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam, they did not certainly deviate from the five fundamentals or six fundamentals I have referred to.
