Questions and Answers

Let us quote the verse first: Surely We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to be unfaithful to it and feared from it, and man has turned unfaithful to it; surely he is unjust, ignorant; (33:72) According to al-Mizan, the 'trust' is al-wilayat al-ilahiyya, meaning the divine sovereignty which Allah offered to all creatures. Only human beings, having assumed the trust, have the potential to attain perfection and perfect their environment. The problem however is that if man was the only creature who accepted the 'trust' why should the verse say "he is unjust, ignorant"? At this juncture, Allamah's tafseer describes the trust in the sense of wilayah as a special favor to humanity entailing enormous responsibility to stand by the obligation of guarding it. Accordingly, only human beings are ready to bear the burden of this trust, and to accept the consequences of being unjust and ignorant because they only can acquire the opposite attributes - namely, those of being just and knowledgeable. Further, the acceptance of this wilayah makes human beings acquire both the responsibility for their actions as well as superiority over all other creatures in the world. It is this wilayah (divine sovereignty) that enables them to put society into order in accordance with their unique comprehension of religion. As a side note, the 6th Imam (a.s.) was asked by someone about this verse and the Imam said: "The trust is the wilayah of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib" (al-Kafi by Kulayni). The Imam's statement makes it clear that it was the act of accepting or rejecting the wilayah of Imam 'Ali that determined whether one had been faithful to the divine trust or not.


Question 5: With regards to verse 2:124, what is the implication of the sentence: My covenant does not include those who have been wrongdoers?


Answer: The verse talks about the bestowal of imamah to Ibrahim (a.s.) after he fulfilled the trial he was subjected to while in his capacity as a Prophet and Messenger of Allah. Therefore, this verse also proves that Imamah is not the same as Prophethood. When Ibrahim (a.s.) said "and of my offspring?", Allah replied: "My covenant does not include those who have been wrongdoers". Obviously, the 'covenant' here refers to the issue of Imamah and the reply is affirmative but with a condition. First let us see what is meant by the clause 'wrongdoer'? According to the Qur'an any one who is unjust to his own self is also a wrongdoer. In connection with Prophet Ibrahim's question about his offspring, Allamah Tabataba'i gives the following explanation:


Prophet Ibrahim's descendants from the point of view of being good or bad can be divided into four categories:


1) Those who throughout their life have been wrongdoers;


2) Those who were wrongdoers in the beginning but became virtuous later;


3) Those who were virtuous in the beginning but became wrongdoers subsequently; and


4) Those who were not wrongdoers at any time. Based on the above explanation, it is impossible that Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) would ask this position for those of his descendants who were bad throughout their life or who were good at first but turned wrongdoers later. Prophet Ibrahim must have asked this position only for those who were good throughout their life. Hence the covenant of Imamah does not include those who had been wrongdoers throughout their life or those who had been good in the beginning, but turned wrongdoers in the later part of their life. The Qur'an is therefore very clear as to who among Ibrahim's descendents qualifies to get the position of Imamah - i.e. those who were not wrongdoers at any time.



The same is the import of the verse:


Our Lord! and make us both submissive to Thee and (raise) from our offspring a group submissive to Thee, and show us our ways of devotion. . . (2:128). Ibrahim (a.s.) and his son Isma'il were praying to Allah for the sublime stage of Islam which is a Divine Gift, a bestowal by Allah, to whom He pleases. A man cannot reach this sublime stage by his own will or effort. In his prayer, he also included a group from his offspring - the same group for whom he asked for the bestowal of Imamah in verse 2:124. Allamah Tabataba'I, in his tafseer of the verse 2:128 says: "When Ibrahim (a.s.) asked from his Lord to raise a Muslim group from among his offspring, he did not mean the elementary rank of Islam; he wanted for them the reality of Islam. The Qur'anic words, "a group submitting to Thee", supports this interpretation. If he wanted only the appearance of Islam and not its essence, it was enough to say, "a group submitting", there was no need to add, 'to Thee'." He adds: "From this point of view that Islam is not different from other positions of al-wilayah (Guardianship of Allah) and its lofty stages, or from other grades of perfection - all of them are beyond the reach of an average man, because he cannot fulfill their necessary conditions. In this sense, it is possible to count that Islam as a Divine gift, which is beyond a man's power to attain by himself. Consequently, it is perfectly right for a man to pray to Allah to bestow on him that sublime quality and make him a Muslim of that high rank."


Question 6: According to verse 5:55 and the circumstances of its revelation, we agree that it was 'Ali ibn Abi-Talib who gave his ring to the beggar while bowing in prayers. However, we also know that 'Ali was always absorbed in his prayers and therefore, how could this happen while he was offering prayers?


Answer: This particular incident can be compared with another incident during which an arrow was pulled out of Imam Ali's body while he was offering prayers without his being conscious. Many explanations have been given for both the incidents. However, the reasons given by the Gnostics with their special taste is most convincing of all. They say that when a man reaches the most perfect spiritual state of being fully attracted towards Allah, he returns to this world. In other words, in this state he attends to Allah as well as to the creation. Thus, the state during which an arrow was pulled from Imam 'Ali's body was a lower one than that in which he attended to a beggar without being unconscious of Allah. Imam 'Ali was so attentive to Allah that he could see the whole world.


Question 7: Those who disbelieve in the sinlessness of the Prophets will often produce verses from the Qur'an to prove their point. A good example is the first few verses of chapter 48 in which it is mentioned about the forgiveness of the past and future faults or sins of the Prophet (pbuh). How do we explain to such people the correct meaning of these verses in this particular chapter?


Answer: Before we discuss the real issue, it should be remembered that those who don't believe in the sinlessness of the Prophets are probably ignorant of the explicit verses, which prove that the Prophets of Allah were protected in receiving the communications, conveying the communications and also protected in their actions. The problem is that they interpret some allegorical expressions literally without returning them to the decisive expressions for their true connotation. Let us now look at the first few verses of chapter "The Victory". Verily We granted thee a manifest victory; so that God may forgive thy sins of the past and those to follow, fulfill His favor to thee, and guide thee on the straight path, and that God may help thee with a powerful help. (48:1-3) These verses show that the sentences beginning from "so that God may forgive…" and ending with "and that God may help thee with a powerful help" are connected and related to the first sentence "Verily We granted thee a manifest victory". Therefore, any explanation not related or relevant to the first sentence is not correct and thus rejected. Most exegetes are in agreement that these verses were revealed in reference to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in which the unbelievers of Mecca agreed to a ten years peace treaty with the Prophet in the year 6 A.H. With this treaty, the Prophet got the chance of peacefully conveying his message to all people of the Arabian Peninsula and outside it. Allah has described this treaty in the first verse as a 'manifest victory' and the rest of the verses explain why this victory was given to the Prophet. The second verse implies that the Prophet had committed sins in past and could commit sins in future and thus he was not sinless. Such an understanding would first, go against the explicit declarations in the Qur'an that Prophets are protected by Allah and second, is not relevant to the victory described in the first verse. Many explanations have been given for these verses but the one in tafseer al-Mizan is most interesting. Allamah Tabataba'I first explains the literal meaning of the words dhanb (commonly used for sin) and ghafara (commonly used for forgiving). He says that the word dhanb is from the verb-form dhanaba, which means, "to follow"; its noun form dhanab means "tail; something that follows". So the main idea in the word dhanb is the concept of something following the other. "Sin" is also known as dhanb because it is an act that entails evil consequence in the form of Allah's displeasure and punishment. Further, the word ghafara actually means, "to cover or conceal something" which also implies the meaning of protecting something. "Forgiving" is also known as ghafara because by forgiving, Allah covers the evil consequence of sins, and protects the sinner from it. With these meanings of the words dhanb and yaghfira, the verses would now read as follows: "Verily We granted thee (in the treaty of Hudaybiyya) a manifest victory; so that God may protect you from the past and future consequences of your (policy with the Meccans)." We can see that Allamah's Tabatabai's explanation is not only relevant to the victory mentioned in the first verse but does not violate the Qur'anic principle that Prophets of Allah are protected, i.e. possess the divine 'ismah.


Question 8: What do the Shi'ah exegetes say about verse 33:33 with regards to proving that the verse of Tathir (purification) does not include the wives of the Prophet (pbuh)?


Answer: The verse of purification (33:33) in the Qur'an comprises of two sentences: "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger." And "Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying." The amazing thing is that the first sentence is a continuation of verse 32 ("O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word.") and if the second sentence is removed, the first sentence will also flow harmoniously with the sentence in the following verse (34): "And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware." Therefore the second sentence is called a "parenthetical sentence" and the same is the case with the verse 3 in surah Maidah: "Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." In the above verse the sentences beginning from "This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion" and ending with "chosen for you Islam as a religion" are called "parenthetical sentences". A parenthetical sentence in the Qur'an is a sentence that has no relationship with the preceding or following sentences such that if removed from a verse, the preceding and the following sentences would flow in harmony. Before we mention the reason for the presence of such sentences, it is important to explain why the first sentence in verse 33:33 is not related to the sentence that follows in the same verse. The Shi'ah exegetes have explained that the sentence in verse 32 and the first sentence of verse 33, all the pronouns are of the feminine gender. This point is not debatable. However, in the second sentence in verse 33, the pronouns are suddenly changed to the masculine gender and then in verse 34, the feminine gender has been used again. One will also find that the wives of the Prophet are addressed in all the sentences with feminine gender pronouns and in the sentence of 'purification'; the People of the House of the Prophet are addressed. In short, the subject matter in the sentence of 'purification' is different from the subject matter in the preceding and following sentences. The verses preceding and following the verse of purification prescribe certain duties for the wives of the Prophet and the instructions imply an order as well as a threat. Thus there is no relationship between this parenthetical sentence and the verses preceding and following it. We also mentioned while answering the question about the implicitly of the issue of Imam 'Ali's wilayah (guardianship) in the Qur'an, that it had the least chance of being implemented owing to the deeply rooted prejudices of the Arabs. An exegete has said that it is perhaps because of this reason that the Qur'an has mentioned the question of Imam 'Ali's wilayah and the excellence of the ahlu-Bayt in such a way that every unbiased Muslim could understand their significance. This could be the same reason why there is the presence of such parenthetical sentences in the Qur'an like the sentence which mentions about Allah's desire to purify the People of the House of the Prophet.


Question 9: In surah Ankabut, Allah says: And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars (29:3) and And most certainly Allah will know those who believe and most certainly He will know the hypocrites. (29:11) If Allah is all-Knowing, why then does He try us in order to know our belief?


Answer: These verses are of the same relationship as the verses: and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you (3:140) and Do you think that you will enter the garden while Allah has not yet known those who strive hard from among you, and (He has not) known the patient. Allamah Tabataba'I says that the words, "that Allah may know those who believe ", imply manifestation of their belief after its being hidden. Allah's knowledge of events and things is the same as their existence. The things are known to Allah by their very existence. His knowledge is not like ours because our knowledge and perception come through a form abstracted from the thing concerned. To say that Allah wills to know a thing is the same as saying that Allah wills to bring it into being. In the verses quoted above, the clause, "that Allah may know those who believe"; shows that there were believers already in existence; therefore, it would mean that He wished to make their belief manifest. In the same manner the sentence "and most certainly He will know the hypocrites" shows that there are hypocrites in existence and therefore it means that Allah will make their hypocrisy manifest. As every thing in this world is governed by the system of cause and effect, it is necessary that some things should happen, in the form of trials, which would make the belief of the believers and the hypocrisy of the hypocrites manifest after they were hidden.


Question/Comment 10: We accept that the event of Ghadeer Khum did take place as historians from both sects have narrated but there was no political-religious implication of that event other than the Prophet reiterating that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the 'friend' of the believers from the word 'mawla' which the Prophet used during his address.


Reply: Study the full context of the Prophet's address at Ghadeer Khum and you will see that the word 'mawla' was used in the sense of 'authority' to establish the guardianship of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib and not in the meaning of friend: "I have been summoned and it is the moment for me to answer. The time has come for me, to depart from you. I leave behind me amongst you, two precious things which, if you cleave to them, you will never go astray. The Holy Book of God and my Offspring the Ahl Al-Bayt. For they will never abandon you, until they have led you to me, at the sacred shores of Heaven!" (The masses of people gathered before him wept openly in sorrow at news of his nearing death.)


"Am I not having more authority (awla) over you than you have over yourselves?" (The people replied in earnest, "By God. Yes you are!") "Then whosoever, I am guardian (mawla) of, Then this man, Ali is his guardian (mawla)." "O God!
Befriend him, whosoever befriends him.
Oppose him, whosoever opposes him.
Support him, whosoever supports him.
Desert him, whosoever deserts him."
"As God is my Judge!
Bear witness then for me, that today I have surely
completed and fulfilled your religion for you,
and have successfully conveyed, The Message,
that has been bestowed upon me by Allah.....
Oh Moslems have I not! ?"

(The Muslims all shouted repeatedly and replied in great earnest, "Yes You have, Oh, Messenger of God! Yes you have.")



The Prophet's address, ""Am I not having more authority (awla) over you than you have over yourselves?" was to establish the import and the true connotation of the next sentence besides reiterating the words of Allah: "The Prophet has a greater authority on the faithful than they have on themselves…" (33:6) Soon after the people responded positively, the Prophet said (raising Ali's hand): "Then whosoever, I am guardian (mawla) of, then this man, Ali is his guardian (mawla)." It is very clear here that the word 'mawla' was used in the meaning of authority. On the other hand, it does not make sense for the Prophet to summon the pilgrims to a very hot place (Ghadeer Khum) on the way back to their respective homes, after a tiring pilgrimage, to simply announce that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was their friend. As if all this time Ali was their enemy!! As a matter of fact, some of the caravans had proceeded far from Ghadeer Khum and yet the Prophet ordered the caravans back. This proves that whatever the Prophet was going to proclaim was indeed an important one and it was intended that the event be witnessed and recorded by as many Muslims as possible. Let us suppose the word 'mawla' was used in the sense of friendship rather than authority. If this was the case, then how do you explain and account for the link between the believers and the final station of spiritual perfection without a leader who would look after the affairs of the believers after the demise of the Prophet? This link is required at all times in the earth so long as there are believers and new people coming into the folds of Islam. This is proven by verses 2:257 and 65:11. In short, this link is the special positive wilayah of Allah channeled through the Messenger and the one in authority after him - i.e. 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and later on, his progeny!


Question 11: Some Muslims believe that all the human characteristics, norms and forms can be applied to Allah! If so, then there is no difference between the Christian beliefs and such an attribution. How do you explain this belief among the Muslims if 'Tawheed' (Oneness in God) is so fundamental? Reply: This is a very good question and an important issue that needs to be addressed urgently. This belief is rejected by the Qur'an itself in its clear and decisive part like for example: The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. (42:11) The clause "nothing like a likeness of Him" in this verse proves that the human characteristics, norms and forms cannot be applied to Allah. However there are allegorical expressions in the Qur'an that seem to confirm human characteristics for God if translated and explained literally. For example: And the face of Your sustainer will abide, full of majesty and honor (55:27) and Everything that exists will perish except His Own face (28:88) If we return these verses to the decisive part or the 'principle' of the Qur'an, the actual intended meaning of these verses is that everything will perish except the religion of Allah, the direction and the way which leads to Allah! Now to answer your question, there are at least two reasons why some Muslims have applied human characteristics to Allah:


1) They have interpreted or explained the allegorical expressions in the Qur'an literally OR


2) They have read traditions by some of the so called companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) like Abu Huraira who happens to have corrupted the traditions of the Prophet (s.a.w.).


We will quote here an example for the second reason:


Abu Haraira reports that the Prophet (s.a.w.) said: "Whenever one is involved in a quarrel or a fight against one's brother, one should refrain from hitting him on the face. This is because Allah created Adam in His Own image." (implying Adam resembled Allah)


Husayn bin Khalid, says: "I asked Imam Ridha (a.s.) about the famous tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.) that Allah created Adam in His Own image.


"He said: 'Cursed be those fraudulent narrators who have omitted the first part of the tradition.' " Then he explained: "Once the Prophet (s.a.w.) was passing by when he heard two men abuse each other. He heard one say: 'May Allah foul and disgrace your face, and the face which resembles yours.' "At that time, the Prophet (s.a.w.) paused and admonished him by saying: 'Do not utter such words for your brother. For Allah created Adam in his own image" (implying the human face resembles that of Adam). When we compare the two traditions, what we see is that Abu Huraira omits the incident in which the Prophet (s.a.w.) had an encounter with two men and then he admonished one of them not to ridicule the human face because it resembled that of Adam. Abu Huraira's version gives an impression that the Pronoun 'His' refers to Allah, while actually it refers to the man himself!


Question 12: The atheists usually ask how an all-Just God can be all-Merciful at the same time. They say that if God is Just He cannot be Merciful and if He is Merciful, He cannot be Just. How would you reply to such a question?


Reply: Such a question arises due to the misunderstanding of the Mercy of God by equating it to the mercy of a human being. God's Mercy is not the same as that of a human being. The mercy of a human being means mildness of temper or softening of the heart and such a meaning should not be attributed to God because He is absolute without any material suppositions. God's Mercy is what a person qualifies to receive. For example, an evil person qualifies to be punished and a good person qualifies to be rewarded. Both the punishment and reward comes due the Mercy of God. In other words, the punishment or reward is fully justified. This is how God is defined to be all-Just and all-Merciful at the same time. We can also add to the above that God's Justice means that His actions are all appropriate and justified and His attribute of Mercy is one of those actions. If His actions are all justified, then His Mercy is justified too. Needless to mention, the Christians also have misunderstood the meaning of the Justice and Mercy of God. The Christians say that Adam (a.s.) committed a sin in the Garden by partaking of the forbidden tree and that the sin remained with Adam and was inherited by his progeny. They also say that if God were to punish Adam and his progeny , it would have been against His mercy; and if He were to forgive them, it would be against His Justice. This is how they were led to believe in the doctrine of atonement by the church leaders. The fact is that both the punishment and forgiveness issues from God's Mercy. Therefore there is no contradiction or conflict between God's Justice and His Mercy.


Question 13: According to the Qur'an, nothing can come into existence if the possibility of its existence did not exist and if Divine Will does not decree its existence. Does this include the sinful actions of evil people? Also, can you explain how everything that exists in the universe glorifies Allah according to verse 17:44. Does this glorification include the disbelievers too?


Reply: The sinful actions of an evil person was based on his free will and choice and therefore attributed to the person himself. However, the action was possible only by the permission of Allah. If Allah prevents an evil doer from an evil action, then the trial system is negated and meaningless. Similarly, Allah does not prevent a good person from performing good actions. Basically, there are two wills and there is no collision between them; Divine and human. For example, Divine will decrees that a certain action be done by a certain person on the condition that it is done by the person's free will, at a certain time and certain place. The relationship of human will to divine will demands that it should be an action of a free agent, done by his own free will and choice. Further, the divine will comes after and above the human will.


Allah says:


The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification; surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving. (17:44) According to this verse, everything that exists glorifies Allah and it is inclusive of even the disbelievers. The clause "but you do not understand their glorification" shows that it is a certain type of non-legislative glorification of a non-relative entity having an absolute reality which we do not know or perceive. Allamah Tabataba'I in his tafseer al-Mizan says that there are two types of glorification: innate and legislative. From the perspective of his existence, a disbeliever is good because his existence was originated by Allah, the absolute good. Therefore, it is innate or inherent in his existence that he glorifies Allah and is submissive to that which Allah has set forth for him. However, his actions of disbelief do not glorify Allah and are considered evil because the latter is a relative entity not having an absolute reality.


Question 14: First, How do we as Muslims consider meat as halal (lawful)? Second, if halal means the way the animal is slaughtered for health reasons, then how do we justify that the meat served in developed countries under strict health rules cannot be considered halal as well?


Reply: Islam, unlike the other religions, has allowed the meats which are agreeable to the normal human nature. Even while allowing the eating of certain animals, it has prohibited its blood and that which has died of itself and on which the name of Allah has not been invoked (see 5:1-3). The purpose behind these rules is to revitalize the natural canon, inasmuch as the man naturally likes to eat meat. In addition, Islam respects the correct thinking and normal nature as these too are repulsed from eating those things which may prove harmful to human beings or which the human nature thinks odious and unclean. In short, Islam has laid down certain rules and enforces certain conditions that must be adhered to. Allah says: ...the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right of religion, but most people do not know. (30:30) The conditions and rules do not neglect the demands of mercy altogether; it has ordered us to deal with the animals with mercy; it has forbidden us to torture the animal at the time of slaughter, hence there is a prescribed method to be adhered at the time of slaughter. Based on the above, what is considered as "halal" (lawful) is that which conforms to the Islamic shari'ah (laws) and hence it is necessary for all Muslims to ensure that the meat has not been obtained by unlawful means or by methods other than the one prescribed in the shari'ah. In addition, the meat served in Canada and USA by non-Muslims in particular, cannot be considered "halal" (lawful) because the methods used for slaughtering the animals do not conform to the rules and conditions laid down by Islam.


Question 15: In the beginning of sura al-Maidah (chapter 5:1-3), Allah talks about what kind of food has been made lawful for the believers and the prohibition of the unlawful. In the verses that follow (5:4-5), the believers are told that the food of those who have been given the Book (People of the Book) is also lawful for them. Does this mean that the believers can also eat the meat served by the People of the Book even though they don't slaughter the lawful animals in the manner prescribed by Islam?


Reply: By making the food of the People of the Book lawful for the believers it does not imply that Allah has laid down two separate rules. In other words, the speech, "and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you" has not ordained a new law contrary to the previous law mentioned in verses 5:1-3. The reality of that which is made lawful remains constant and thus does not change. "at-ta'am" in the verse 5:5 refers to all that is eaten and taken as nourishment and the word can also be used to mean "wheat" exclusively (vide lisaanu 'l-Arab). In most traditions narrated from the Imams (a.s.), it has been declared that at-ta'am in this verse means wheat and other grains. Thus, the permission to eat the food of the People of the Book does not cover those animals whose meat is forbidden nor does it cover those lawful animals, which have not been slaughtered according to the rules laid down by Allah. The prohibition of the unlawful items has also been mentioned in the chapters of "the Cow" and "the Bee".


Question 16: In the article on sinlessness of Prophets the story of Adam and the events in the Garden was explained. However, how does one explain the following verse which clearly points that Adam was asking for forgiveness for a mistake he made?


They said: "Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers" [7:23].


Reply: Certainly this injustice to their own selves and the forgiveness asked for were not related to the hereafter, because the prohibition which they had contravened was in nature of an advice, not of a law.


Question 17: How can one say that Prophets of Allah were sinless when there are verses where Allah mentions their repentance or His turning to them, for example: Then Adam received (some) words from His Lord, so He turned to him mercifully. (2:37) ...he (Musa, a.s.) said: "Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers." (7:143) Certainly Allah has turned (mercifully) to the prophet and those who fled (their homes) and the helpers who followed him... (9:117) Therefore be patient (O Prophet!); surely the promise of Allah is true; and seek forgiveness and sing the praise of your Lord... (40:55)


Reply: According to the Qur'an, repentance means wanting to return from a far away station or from the pit of unhappiness due to a sinful act to the proximity of the Lord or the station of happiness. By the same token, forgiving a servant means returning him to the station of happiness. However, proximity or nearness and remoteness are relative terms. In other words, within the circle of nearness, it is quite possible that some positions would be remoter than the others. In this way, "repentance" may be used for even those good sinless servants who are nearer to Allah, when they rise to a station that is even higher and nearer than their previous place. This is the phenomenon seen in the verses you quoted above. In this case, forgiving or returning to, a sinless servant means elevating him to a higher station than before. In the case of Adam (a.s.), if his repentance was due to a mistake or sin, then how come he was not returned to the Garden?


Question 18: The Shi'as often produce verse 5:67 to prove that the Messenger was asked by Allah to convey an important commandment - the appointment of his successor. However, some commentators (mostly Sunnis) say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was ordered to deliver what Allah had revealed regarding the People of the Book based on the verses preceding and following verse 5:67. Can you show me how the Sunni explanation can be rejected?


Reply: The context of the verse itself rejects such an interpretation. The clause: and Allah will protect you from the people, shows that the revealed order which the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is urged to convey is a very important one; the non-delivery of which would put the life of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in peril or would cause the divine religion to fail in its aim. But the Jews or the Christians did not have such a power during the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as to put his life in danger to such an extent as to justify holding back or delaying its conveyance, until Allah gives him a promise to protect him from the people if he conveys the revealed order. Even in the early days of the Prophet's hijrah to Medina the People of the Book were not in a position to put his life in danger, although the Jews were fiercely opposed to him and their active opposition ultimately led to the battle of Khaybar, etc. Besides, the Prophet had previously delivered the verses, which were harder, sharper and much bitter for the Jews, without any hesitation or fear.


Question 19: Can all the Prophets be called Imams on the basis that they were also rightly guided by Allah?


Reply: There is no doubt, according to the Qur'an that an Imam is a leader who guides by Allah's Command. It is also inferred from the Qur'an that if one guides by Allah's command, he must be rightly guided by Allah Himself and not by any other person. But the Qur'an has not shown that whoever is rightly guided by Allah should necessarily be a guide (an Imam) to Allah. Therefore, it is not necessary that every Prophet of Allah should be called an Imam. The following verses show that while various Prophets were rightly guided by Allah, there is no joining statement that they all guided the people to Allah: And We gave to him (i.e., Ibrahim) Ishaq and Ya'qub; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawud and Sulayman and Ayyub and Yusuf and Harun; and thus do We reward those who do good; and Zakariyya and Yahya and 'Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the righteous (ones) and Isma'il and Ilyasa' and Yunus and Lut; and every one We did exalt over the worlds; and from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren; and We chose them and guided them to the straight path. This is Allah's guidance, He guides thereby whom He pleases of His servants; and if they had set up others (with Him), certainly what they did would have become ineffectual for them. These are they to whom We gave the book and the wisdom and the prophethood; therefore if these disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it. These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. Say: "I do not ask you for any reward for it; it is but a reminder to the worlds" (6:86 90). However, there are verses that show that some Prophets were made Imams and it is joined by the statement that they guided people by Allah's Command, for example: And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, a son's son, and We made (them) all good. And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve. (21:72-73)


Question 20: After reading the reply to Question 18, I am still wondering how the connection is made between verse 5:67 and the appointment of the Prophet's successor. Can you favor me with an answer?


Reply: The sentence "if you do it not, then you have not delivered His Message, and Allah will protect you from the people" which comes after the command to deliver a previously revealed order in verse 5:67, is an important sentence which acts like a key to open the true meaning of the verse. If this statement was not present, then the meaning of the verse would be very vague and that is why some exegetes have misinterpreted the verse because they either neglected or misconstrued this important sentence. For example, Ibn Kathir, a famous 13th century Sunni exegete says that the Messenger is asked to continue to deliver and propagate Allah's Messages without fearing the people. One can see that such an explanation implies that the Prophet had retained a major portion of the revelation on account of fearing the people and also that Allah was not assuring him protection until this verse is revealed. But it was Allah's decree that He should protect the Prophet right from the time he was commissioned to spread the Message of Islam. According to Allamah Tabataba'I, this sentence proves that the particular message the Prophet was asked to convey occupied a central position in the fabric of Islam without which the entire religion of Islam would be like a body without a soul! Therefore, this particular message, a great Divine favor, would be added to the religion to make it perfect. Until this time, the disbelievers had not given up their hopes in destroying the Prophet's mission and Allah on that day, shattered all their hopes by appointing a waliyy (master or guardian of the believers and protector of the Prophet's mission) as the Prophet's successor. This is clearly inferred from the famous tradition of Ghadeer Khum and the verse: ...This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion... (5:3)


Poser: You said that it was Allah's decree to protect the Prophet at all times in the delivery of His Messages. Then why does Allah say in the verse 5:67, "and Allah will protect you from the people"?


Reply: The clause, "and Allah will protect you from the people" is a particular protection promised to the Prophet because the message contained a sort of personal benefit and interest for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and gives him a privilege, which the others too would have desired; and its delivery and enforcement would deprive them of its enjoyment. But the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid that the people would accuse him regarding his cousin; that was why he kept postponing its delivery until this verse was sent down. Allah ordered him to convey it and put utmost emphasis on this delivery, and promised to protect him from the people.


Question 21: I have a question regarding verse 4:59. In the sentence, "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and His Messenger", those in authority (ulul amr) are not mentioned. Why they are not mentioned if obedience to them is one and the same as that to the Messenger?


Reply: Some commentators have said that the quarrel mentioned in the verse is between the believers and the ulu'l-amr (those in authority) and that is why they are not mentioned in the sentence you quoted. This explanation is rejected because it goes against the obligation of their obedience. This obligation shows that the ulu'l-amr are always right because in dispute one party is surely wrong. Therefore the "quarrel" refers to the dispute among the believers and the whole speech is addressed to them. "Refer it to Allah and the Messenger", shows that the quarrel is about something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu'l-amr. The order to refer a matter to Allah and the Messenger does not cover things like their order to join an expedition, to fight or to make peace, because people are obliged to obey the ulu'l-amr in these things. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. Further proof is found in the following verse: And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few. (4:83) The sentence, "if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them" shows that the matter (news of security) was not about a religious law but something in the jurisdiction of those in authority as well.


Question 22: I have one question regarding the sending down of the Qur'an. I do understand the difference between "inzal" (sending all at once) and "tanzil" (sending gradually). However, it was pointed out to me by a respectable Sheikh that in verse 2:22, the Qur'an uses "inzal" for sending down rain and undoubtedly the rain does not come down all at once - therefore there is no difference between these two verbal forms. We would like your respected opinion about this issue.


Reply: There is definitely a difference between "inzal" and "tanzil" otherwise the Qur'an would not use two different verbal forms to describe sending down, in order to maintain its uniqueness. Now the rain does come down gradually but it is looked upon as one whole collection and this why the verbal form inzal and not tanzil has been used in the verse you quoted and also in verse 10:24 as Allah says: Like the water which we sent down from the sky. (10:24) The same is the meaning of the verse: (this is) a book We have sent down to you abounding in good, so that they may ponder over its verses (38:29) In the above verse, the whole book has been taken as one collection and the verbal form inzal has been used. The same can be applied to the sending down of the Torah and Injeel as seen in the following verse: He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan. (3:3) The verses which say that the Qur'an was sent down specifically in the month of Ramadan, have used the verbal form of inzal which indicates sending down all at once. (Qur'an 2:185; 44:23; 97:1). This "all at once" means the reality of the Book which is something different from the words written on paper, etc. Its common meaning gives the picture of a thing which can be divided and sectionalized and which can be a subject of expansion and gradualness, but the reality of the Book is a single, non gradual thing which was sent down all at once, and not in pieces. This meaning is apparent in the following verse: (This is) a book whose verses were confirmed, then they were divided (made clear) from One Wise All aware. (11:1)


Question/Comment 23: The Shias believe that Ali was appointed and declared Khalifa (successor) by the Prophet (s.a.w.). With so many enemies around him and the opposition of Banu Umayya and others, would he have succeeded if he was appointed as the first Khalifa? We know that his three and a half years term was marred by wars and had ended in his tragic death.


Reply: The appointment and declaration of the Prophet's successor was by the command of Allah vide verse 5:67 and the circumstances of its revelation. Therefore, the number of enemies and the opposition clan has no bearing on the qualification and success of a Khalifa. You will notice that no one questions the appointment of Mohamed (s.a.w.a.) as the Prophet and Messenger of Allah even though he had more enemies than 'Ali and his prophethood was marred by not less than 88 battles! What matters the most is the individual's standing with Allah and the divinely appointed status which is based on Allah's Knowledge and Wisdom. Since al-wilayah is a great Divine bounty (vide verse 5:3), its real success is when the believers comply with the divine purpose for which the bounty was bestowed.


Question 24: How can the Shias be on the right path, when a follower once asked Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) as to who will enter Jannah, and the Prophet's (PBUH) answer was "the largest community (sect)" will enter Jannah. Based on this tradition, wouldn't you say that the Sunnis will enter Jannah since they are the largest community (sect)?



Reply: If such a hadith does exist and if it has been quoted correctly above, then its authenticity is questionable because it is completely in contradiction to the Qur'an. Allah says: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (2:62). The verse says that Allah gives no importance to names, like the believers, the Jews, the Christians or the Sabaeans. One cannot get a reward from Allah, nor can he be saved from punishment, merely by giving oneself good titles and as for example the claim that: no one will enter the Garden except the largest community. The only criterion, the only standard, of honor and happiness is the real belief in Allah and the Day of Resurrection, accompanied by good deeds. This rule is applicable to all human beings, right from the prophets to the lowest rank of people. Another verse describes the condition for entering the Garden: Or do you think that you would enter the garden while yet the state of those who have passed away before you has not come upon you; distress and affliction befell them and they were shaken violently, so that the Messenger and those who believed with him said: When will the help of Allah come? Now surely the help of Allah is nigh! (2:214)


Question 25: I have two questions about the Prophet 'Isa (a.s.):


1. Was 'Isa (a.s.) given death before or during his ascension or is he kept alive by Allah?


2. Is there proof in the Qur'an about Prophet 'Isa's second coming?

Reply:


1. According to the Qur'an, 'Isa (a.s.) was first taken away and then raised up to Allah. The context of the following verses refute the claim that 'Isa was killed or crucified: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. (4:157) Rather Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (4:158) And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to take you away completely and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. (3:55) We can see from the above verses that 'Isa (a.s.) was protected from murder and crucifixion. In short, 'Isa was raised up with his body and soul together. Further, the context of the above verses does not agree that he was given death and then his soul was raised to Allah. The adverb "rather" in verse 4:158 would be meaningless if it were to show that his soul was raised up after his death because such an ascension could happen even after his murder or natural death. It is not impossible that Allah has preserved the life of 'Isa (a.s.) in some extra natural way.


2. It has been narrated in some traditions that 'Isa is alive, has not died and that he will come down before the Day of Resurrection and then the People of the Book - the Jews and Christians will believe in him. While the idea that 'Isa (a.s.) is alive finds good support in the Qur'an, his second coming is not supported in the Book of Allah. Some people have used the following verse while leaning to these traditions to support that idea: And there is not one of the People of the Book but he must certainly believe in him before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them. (4:159) These people say that the pronoun "before his death" refers to 'Isa (a.s.) and not each and every one of the People of the Book who will believe in him before that one dies. But according to this explanation, the verse would mean that only those People of the Book would believe in 'Isa who would be present during his second coming. This restricts without any reason the generality of the phrase "and there is not one of the People of the Book".


Question 26: In verse 20 of surah 26 (The Poets), Prophet Musa (a.s.) is reported to have said that he was of "those who were astray". How does one explain this verse in light of the infallibility of the prophets?


Reply: The root of the Arabic word "dzalla" used in the verse has several meanings like, "go astray", "lose one's way, "to be tied up with error", "to deviate", "to forget", etc. The word is commonly translated as "go astray" but its correct application will depend on the context of the verse and of those verses related to this one. In surah al-Qasas in verse 15, Musa (a.s.) is quoted saying (after killing the aggressor) "This is on account of the Shaytan's doing" which means that Shaytan was responsible for the fight that took place. Then in the following verse (16), Musa (a.s.) said to Allah: "My Lord! Surely I have caught myself in this error (fight), so do Thou protect me. So He protected him; surely He is the Protector, the Merciful". Here we see that Musa (a.s.) was asking for protection because he feared that people, especially Firawn may have a crime against him although he did not kill the aggressor unjustly. Coming to surah 26, in verse 14, Musa (a.s.) gives one of the reasons why he expects that Firawn and his people would belie him as he says to Allah: "And they have a crime against me, therefore I fear that they may slay me". Notice that Musa (a.s.) did not say "I have a crime, therefore I fear that they will slay me". This would imply he is guilty of the crime but "they have a crime against me" does not imply that he is naturally guilty of the said crime. Finally, the connotation of the verse 26:20 is (and Allah knows best): "I did it then while I was of those tied up in a fight which was an error (on the part of the aggressor) as Shaytan who causes people to go astray was responsible for it".


Question 27: Allah sent Iblis out of the Garden because he acted proudly by trying to make Adam eat from the tree. So we understand that it was the act of pride that cannot be allowed in the Garden. Why is it that Iblis was allowed in a place of honor (Garden) in the first place? Didn't he refuse to prostrate to Adam...?


Reply: The story of Adam and the Garden has been revealed to depict the reality of our existence and how Allah established a firm divine decree that "Shaytan" will be our open enemy because of his rebellious nature as demonstrated by his refusal to prostrate to Adam. The Garden was not of the "everlasting abode", but a Garden that Allah created in this world as a model to prepare Adam and his wife for their abode on the earth and the trials for which they were created. No one is removed from an "everlasting" abode but both Adam and his wife and Iblis were told to get down. Therefore we deduce that it was not a Garden of the everlasting nature. Consider the story as a real play with the aim of informing and teaching the audience the reality of their existence. How can this reality be conveyed without allowing man's opening enemy (Iblis) to play a part? Now if Iblis was not allowed to deceive Adam, how would the audience know that he is indeed an enemy seeking to lead astray? Also, imagine that the audience sees Iblis trying to deceive Adam and the latter does not approach the tree. How would they know that Iblis is truly deceitful if Adam is not allowed the choice of approaching the tree? This is how we deduce that the prohibition was of the "advisory" nature and not authoritative. Ponder on the above!


Question 28: I have a question regarding verse 42:23. A friend of mine tells me that the verse was revealed when the prophet was speaking with his relatives from the Quraysh and Banu Hashim so that they might FOLLOW him. The verse says: "I ask of you to be kind with me for my kinship with you" He's not asking for the people to LOVE his Kinship, he's telling them to treat him with kindness because of the kinship he has with them. How would you respond to this?


Reply: We have to understand the above expression in verse 42:23 with the beginning part which says: "Say: I do not want any reward for this save…." This part goes hand in hand with those verses that deny any compensation for the Messenger such as: "Whatever recompense I have asked of you is only for your souls, my recompense is from God alone." (47:34). And the whole expression is similar to: … "No reward do I ask you for this save that you willingly take a path to your Lord" (25:57). Now, the reward in verse 42:23 is replaced with the love of "fil-Qurba" and if we take the clause "fil-Qurba" to mean the kinship of the Messenger with the disbelievers, then the "Ajr" (reward) does not make sense because the disbelievers among the Quraysh were adamant and reluctant to follow the Messenger. Therefore we have to find such a meaning that will go hand in hand with the expression, "save that you willingly take a path to your Lord" in verse 25:57 and a meaning which is equal to the reward for the effort put in by the Messenger in his ministry. We have written an article on this subject and you can read it here: http://www.almizan.org/new/article14.asp


Question 29: I have a question regarding verse 33:6 where it says that the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) are like our mothers. What we have been told is that it means we are not supposed to marry them after the Prophet. But a Sunni will say that the Qur'an should have been explicit in this prohibition of marrying them. They also claim that the verse means they are like our own mothers and that we should treat them with a lot of respect. Can you shed some light in this issue? Reply: This is what a famous Sunni exegete, Ibn Kathir says about this verse: "..and his wife are their mothers - means, they are unlawful for marriage."


And Allamah Tabataba'I says: "It means that just as it is imperative to respect one's mother in the same way we should respect the wives of the Messenger and it is unlawful to marry them [divorced or widowed]." He also says: "The wives of the Messenger are termed and compared as mothers in the general sense of a simile but not in the total sense." You will appreciate that "and his wife are like their mother" is a very eloquent expression implying the prohibition of marriage. Those who look for explicit statements in the Qur'an should study why it was necessary for the Qur'an to express some realities in the form of similes. In the days before Islam, normally referred to as the days of ignorance, when a person got angry with his wife he divorced her and one of the methods of divorce was uttering the words, "Your back is like my mother's back" - an expression which means that now the wife is no longer legal for the husband just like his mother is not legal for him. In conclusion, most Sunnis agree that the verse principally talks about the prohibition in marrying them by the expression used. However, there are a few who stretch the expression by saying that the wives are compared as mothers in the total sense - a far fetched interpretation.


Question 30: Is "alam-e-dhar" (world of pre-existence) the explanation for the verse 7:172 in which it is mentioned that we all made a covenant that Allah is our Lord? If not, then what is the correct explanation of this verse?


Reply: According to what we have been given to understand, the tradition of alam-e-dhar is explained as a world prior to this existence during which God brought forth tiny particles from the loins of Adam (a.s.) representing all his descendants and they were consciously asked to bear witness that Allah is their Lord and those who accepted came into this existence as believers and those who did not, came as disbelievers. Let us first look at the verse in question: "And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection: Surely we were heedless of this." (7:172) Now the verse says that the "bringing forth" was from the loins of the children of Adam (a.s.) but the above tradition says "from the loins of Adam (a.s.)". The verse also says that all the descendents said "Yes! we bear witness" and in the above tradition, we are told that not all bore witness. Thus we deduce that the tradition of alam-e-dhar is not the explanation of the above verse. The tradition could be a metaphorical expression relating to a different reality of the spiritual existence. Exegetes have tried to explain this verse with a lot of difficulty and thus we have various explanations available. The most interesting is the one available in tafseer al-Mizan and we paraphrase as follows: The verse talks about the deep connection and relationship every soul has with their Lord such that at no time a creature can remain independent of their Creator. In other words, every soul testified and continues to testify this connection and dependence subconsciously. The very nature of the testimony is metaphysical and thus the difficulty in remembering the said covenant. This is apparent in the following verse as well: "The seven heavens and the earth, and whosoever is in them, glorify Him; there is not a single thing but that it glorifies His praise, but you do not understand their glorification.." (17:44) This verse talks about that kind of glorification which is innate and creative in nature with a special provision, "but you do not understand". Had the verse said "and you do understand" it would have implied that legislative glorification which a believer engages in. By this covenant the children of Adam and their descendents will not have any excuse on Judgment Day that they were heedless of their Lord. The excuse of following their fathers and ancestors in worshipping other deities will not be accepted based on this verse and the one following it. Or lest you should say: "It were our fathers, before us, who associated partners with Allah, and we are their descendents after them. Will you then destroy us for the deeds of those who deal in vanities?" (7:173) In short, the covenant is part of the nature in which Allah has made man. Man is ever indulging in this material world and deviates from remembering his Lord. It is only through trials and afflictions that some us come closer to God because it is the last hope to cling to and the reason for this is the said covenant!


Question 31: I was recently talking with some Bahais and you probably know that they believe Bahaullah to be a messenger after our Holy Prophet Muhammad (S). I showed them the verse in the Quran that says prophet Muhammad (S) is the seal of the prophets. They said: "Bahaullah is a messenger and not a prophet. The verse says prophet Muhammad (S) is the last prophet and does not say he is the last messenger." Now, how do I show them that Muhammad is also the seal of the Messengers through Quran itself?


Reply: Allah uses two words for those who received His revelations in order to guide people. These words are: rasul and nabi. Rasul means the one who brings the message (from the word risalah) and has the distinction of being an intercessor between Allah and His creatures. Nabi means one who brings the news (from the word naba') and has the distinction of having the knowledge of Allah and from Allah. But the words of Allah do not show any difference between the two except what appears from their literal meaning. So if Allah says that he is the seal of the Prophets, it also implies that he is the seal of the Messengers.


For example: "And remember Musa in the Book; surely he was one purified and a was a Messenger, a Prophet." (19:51) The aim of this verse is to praise Musa and show his greatness and the verse uses the words rasul and nabi probably in their literal sense: Musa was a Messenger of Allah and had the knowledge and information of the signs of Allah and His secrets. "And We did not send before you any Messenger or Prophet but….." (25:22) This verse joins the Messengers and the Prophets together and then uses the verb "to send" (irsal) for both, making all of them Messengers (mursal). The verse may also be taken to mean that the Prophet and the Messenger both are sent to the people, but the Prophet is sent to convey to them information of the unseen, as he knows the divine secrets, and the apostle is sent to bring them something more than a Prophetic communication.


There are other verses which make all of them Prophets, as for example: "and the book shall be laid down, and the Prophets and the witnesses shall be brought up…" (39:69) "so Allah sent the Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners" (2:213) What we gather from the above discussion is that there is no difference between the two but in the literal sense, Prophethood is more general and comprehensive than Messengership and the latter is more particular. Logically, when a general item is negated its particulars are automatically negated.


Thus the verse: "…but he (Muhammad) is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets" (33:40) means, Muhammad (pbuh) who is the last of the Prophets of Allah (in the sense that he has the distinction of having the knowledge of Allah), is also the last of the Messengers of Allah (in the sense that he brings the message and is the intercessor between Allah and His creatures). Question 32: In the tafseer of verse 2:124 and under the topic of "Imamah" it was mentioned that the deeds of the people are not hidden from the Imam. Where in the Qur'an can we prove this basic factor of Imamah?



Reply: Allah says: "And say: Work; so Allah will see your work and (so will) His Messenger and the believers; and you shall be brought back to the Knower of the unseen and the seen, then He will inform you of what you did." (9:105) In this verse, "the believers" cannot refer to ordinary believers but those who have been made intermediaries between Allah and the creatures and those who guide by Allah's Command. The same is the connotation of "those who believe" in the following verse: "Only Allah is your guardian and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow." (5:55)


The Imams are appointed by Allah and they do not reach the covenant of Imamah on their own as inferred from the following verse: "...Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant (of Imamah) does not include the unjust, said He." (2:124) The above verse shows that while the just among the progeny of Ibrahim will be bestowed the status of Imamah, they will not reach that status on their own but by Allah's Divine decree. Note: Read also our reply to question #5 above. Question 33: Let us revisit the previous question asked about surah 'Abasa as to who frowned at the blind man. Recently I heard some Shi'ahs quoting some of their scholars saying that it was the Prophet (pbuh) who frowned. I thought we Shi'ahs would not ascribe a sin, mistake or such behavior to our holy Prophet (pbuh). Can you provide us with a convincing argument to prove that someone other than the Prophet frowned at the blind man? Reply: Since the 'subject of the narration' is not mentioned in the chapter, perhaps we can provide an intellectual argument by first examining the aim of the revelation of the chapter which is to reprimand one who prefers the affluent and wealthy over the weak and destitute among the believers, who elevates the people of the world and degrades the people of the Hereafter. Then the chapter continues to elude to the frailty of human creation and his extreme dependence in managing his affair, and despite all this, his ungratefulness vis-à-vis the blessings of his Lord and His magnificent control over his affairs. The chapter finally ends with a mention of the human being's resurrection and reprisal as a word of admonition. Based on the above, is it intellectually plausible that it was the Prophet (s) who frowned at the blind man? As a matter of fact there is an apparent indication that the verses refer to other than the Prophet (s) for the act of frowning is not among the noble characteristics of the Prophet (s). Further, the description about the one who frowned does not resemble the noble traits of the Prophet (s) and especially after Allah has venerated his character traits at the onset of his apostleship and does that in the absolute sense as mentioned in chapter 68:4, 'And indeed you possess a great character.' It is also intellectually immoral to say that Allah did not prohibit him from such an act except in this case, as claimed by others. And a character trait (khulq) as mentioned in verse 68:4 is a habitual disposition (malakah) that cannot perform an act contrary to what it dictates.