Is there only one difference between Aaron and Ali?

Answering-Ansar says:

Whilst Shi’a are in no doubt that the station of Prophethood ended with Muhammad (s) we would like to know why this Nasibi doesn’t seek to explain the Hadith in its entirety? The Prophet (s) is making it clear that other than Prophethood all other ranks that existed between Musa (as) and Harun (as) existed between him and Ali (as). Whilst we accept the second portion precluded Prophethood for Ali (as), all other relationships that Harun (as) had with Musa (as) existed, why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi offer any comments about the opening words? If you look at the complete Hadith ‘Your position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that there will be no prophet after me’ we can see that the sole rank the Ali (as) did not share with Harun (as) was that of Prophethood, The words of Rasulullah (s) ‘except there will be no Prophet after me’ proves that other than the station of Prophethood all the other ranks / duties that were associated with the Prophethood of Harun (as) had to also be possessed and filled by Maula Ali (as). Note that Muhammad(s) puts only one exemption clause in the nature of this relationship and that is that unlike Harun, Ali (as) will not be a prophet, hence the words, ‘…except that there will be no prophet after me.’ Given that the Qur’an states in black and white that Harun (as)’s relationship to Musa (as) is that of brother, vizier and khalifa it must be the same with Ali (as) for the only difference will be that Ali (as) is not a prophet.

Of course there were many differences between Aaron and Ali aside from Prophethood. The biggest is the difference in regard to successorship (if we suppose that Ali was supposed to be the first Imam after Prophet Muhammad). Because Aaron never became the Caliph after Moses.

And this is what Ibn al-Hashmi mentioned in his blog.

It was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) who became the Caliph (successor) of Musa, not Prophet Haroon nor his descendants. Throughout the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn and Uthman, Ali remained a spiritual guide for the people. Similar is the case with many of the Imams of the Shia, who secluded themselves from any temporal role and instead remained as spiritual guides.

The Hadith al-Manzilah does not at all help the Shia cause, but rather it is a strong proof against the Shia claims. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha rather than Prophet Haroon. Instead, the Prophet likened Ali to Prophet Haroon whose role was not that of a temporal ruler but that of a spiritual guide.

So the simple logic which is not difficult for a sane person to understand is that if you try to prove the Imamate of Ali from this hadith, the first thing you should show is that Aaron became the Imam (shiogically speaking) after Moses. When this main and the fundamental ingredient is not present in the example of Aaron, how can you use this example to justify the Imamate of Ali?

Imam Nawawi’s sharh regarding this hadith also makes it very clear.

وليس فيه دلالة لاستخلافه بعده ، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما قال هذا لعلي حين استخلفه في المدينة في غزوة تبوك ، ويؤيد هذا أن هارون المشبه به لم يكن خليفة بعد موسى ، بل توفي في حياة موسى ، وقبل وفاة موسى بنحو أربعين سنة

there isn’t any proof in it that he is the Caliph after the Prophet, as the Prophet [s] only said this to Ali when he made him a Caliph in Madina in Ghazwa Tabuk, and supporting this (is  the fact that) Aaron didn’t became Caliph after Moses, rather he died in the life of Moses, almost 40 years before the death of Moses.

Answering-Ansar has nothing to refute it. Trying to refute it, it further increases the problems for itself.

Answering-Ansar says:

Sadly for shameless Ibn al Hashimi rather than weaken the Shia stance it strengthens it after all what was the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as)? Who possessed a closer relationship with Prophet Musa (as) was it Harun (as) or Yusha bin Nun (as)? Had the comparison merely been to that of Yusha that would have been just one rank that of Leadership, nothing more than that, whereas the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as) was far greater. Rasulullah (s) by citing Hadith Manzila made it clear that the believers need to look no further than the Quran to recognize that station of Harun (as). Yusha may have indeed succeeded Harun as the Head of State, but he is not talked of in the Quran. We are not denying the excellence and honor bestowed upon Yusha bin Nun, but remember that excellence was one that linked him to Musa (as), he was his Khalifa. Harun (as)’s being the Khalifa of his brother only partially reflected the relationship between the two Prophets. The relationship between Harun (as) and Musa (as) was multi faceted as can be evidenced from the Quran.

Now of course Ahlus Sunnah don’t have any problem with anyone saying that this hadith shows the esteemed position of Ali near the Prophet (s). And we also have no problem with anyone saying that Aaron was superior to Joshua. Answering-Ansar’s statement that

Had the comparison merely been to that of Yusha that would have been just one rank that of Leadership, nothing more than that, whereas the relationship between Musa (as) and Harun (as) was far greater.

is just the fact we are trying to make the Shia understand. The one rank that Yushua had, was the rank of Leadership, Successorship, and that is the rank that the Shias try to prove for Ali from this hadith of Manzila, while this rank wasn’t with Aaron, and when Aaron didn’t have this rank, so how can this hadith show the Imamate and the Successorship of Ali?

Then Answering-Ansar says:

Rasulullah (s)’ citing the relationship between Harun (as) and Musa (as) sought to highlight the best possible relationship that best described his relationship with Ali (as) that was more than the fact he was his Khalifa as was Yusha bin Nun. The Prophet (s) therefore cited that relationship that a simile that could be gauged by looking at the Quran after all both Israelite Prophets are extolled on many occasions and we are informed that Harun (as) was brother, Vizier and Khalifa of Musa (as) – a relationship that likewise applied to Maula Ali (as).

Again we have to say the same thing. No doubt, Harun (as) was brother, Vizier and Khalifa of Musa (as), but he was the Khalifa of Musa (as) during his life. And we also don’t deny the fact that on the occasion of Tabuk, Ali was appointed Khalifa just like Harun (as) and on this occasion, the Prophet said this to make Ali assure that he shouldn’t be worried about what the people talk about him, his status is indeed just like the status of Harun (as) , who was not left by Musa because he lacked something, rather he was left by Musa (as) to guide the people and act as his deputy. And just like that incident didn’t made Harun (as) the wasi of Musa (as), similarly this incident at Tabuk doesn’t make Ali the wasi of Prophet Muhammad (s).

While Answering-Ansar should have tried to refute this fact (which is totally unrefutable) that Joshua became the wasi of Musa (as) , it started undermining this role and claimed that:

Yusha bin Nun may have been the Khalifa after Musa (as) but he didn’t possess the other attributes that Allah (swt) gave Harun (as) in the Quran. Allah (swt) describes Harun (as) as the Vizier, brother, helper and Khalifa of Musa (as).

In short, when the main subject on which our discussion lies is accepted not present in Aaron, that is he wasn’t the Wasi of Musa (as), so how can this hadith prove Ali to be the Wasi of Prophet Muhammad (s)? Hence it can be concluded that Shias in trying to prove the Imamate of Ali from this hadith of Manzila are making a fatal error. May Allah protect us from misguidance.

Similar post:

Timing of breaking fast and the deception of Answering-Ansar

Answering-Ansar says:

The Qur’an instructs us to fast till night “thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail”, and night enters when darkness casts in. Why do you open your fasts early? Why were Umar and Uthman opening their fasts after Maghrib prayers?
Nuqaa’ Umar, Page 110, Hadeeth 351, by Shah Waliallah Dhelavi

The scholars at Answering-Ansar don’t know how to read Arabic. They also don’t know how to read Urdu. The way they have transliterated the Quranic verse shows the poor Quran reading skills of Answering-Ansar, which is trying to spread the truth.

The Quranic verse is

thumma atimmoo alssiyama ila allayli

Now compare it with what Answering-Ansar has said

thamar atmou alsiyamar ilaa Al-lail

Then Answering-Ansar, showing the poor reading skills of its authors, didn’t know how to read the simple and very commonly used word fiqh, and confused the ف with ن . Of course this can be expected from the scholars of Answering-Ansar only. So the book it took reference from (while copying from Abdul Kareem Mushtaq’s book) is fiqh Umar, and not nuqaa Umar.

Now we have two kind of narrations, according to one, it i mentioned that Umar and Uthman would pray after breaking fast, and according to the other, they would pray before breaking fast. Shah Waliullah has mentioned both kind of narrations.

The first kind of narration is present in Musannaf ibn abi shayba, and the second kind of hadith is present in Muwatta Imam Malik. Both are disconnected reports.

But in religious issues, when there is a hadith of Prophet (s), then we don’t have to take evidence from the sunnah of a Sahabi, and we have many ahadith that the Prophet (s) would break his fast before praying.

عن أنس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان لا يصلي حتى يفطر ولو بشربة من ماء

It has been narrated by Anas that he said :   “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not pray Maghrib until he had broken his fast, if only with a sip of water.(Reported by Imam Baihaqi, ; al-Silsilat al-Saheehah, 2110)

Moreover, our brother at Islamistruth blog, has already written about it. Click here to read it.

Misrepresentation of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlwi’s view regarding Amir Muawiyah

Answering-Ansar says:

The admission by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi that Mu’awiya cursed Ali (as)

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz was a leading Sunni scholar and was a lead name in his fight against the spread of Shi’aism in the Indian Subcontinent. Despite his opposition to the Shi’a he also made the acknowledgement in his Fatawa Azizi on page 214: “…The act of cursing Ali was introduced by Mu’awiya, this is not worse than fighting, for we learn from hadith that cursing a Muslim is Fisq, fighting him is kufr. It is established that Mu’awiya fought ‘Ali and in doing so he committed a great sin, to explain this away in terms of ijtihad is wrong”.

In another article it says:

In Fatwa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that:: “Mu’awiya would curse Ali (as)”. Fatwa Azizi by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, page 123 Hence Marwan and Mu’awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nawasib. Their hatred takes numerous guises. In their lectures and writings their Nasibi thought becomes evident as does their hatred for the Shi’a of Ali. This party who pass fatwas of Kufr upon the Shi’a are in fact the spiritual descendants of Marwan and Mu’awiya and thus they adhere to an illegitimate belief formulated in the minds of the enemies of Ali (as).

We don’t find any such statement in Fatawa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz. Rather what we read in Fatawa Azizi regarding the hadith of Sahih Muslim in which Muawiyah said to Saad “What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab” is clearly different from what Answering-Ansar said. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlwi answered in reply to this hadith two times. At one place he said :

In Muslim and Tirmidhi, it is mentioned that Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan said to Saad ibn Abi Waqas: “What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab” Some advocates of Muawiyah make its tawil and say that “Muawiyah meant that why don’t you talk strictly to Ali and tell him that part away from the killers of Uthman, and gave them to us so we can implement the qisas.” But there are two problems in this explanation. The first problem is that this shows that this incident happened in the life of Ali. While we learn from the history that Muawiyah didn’t meet Saad, for Saad went to a place outside Madina when the fitna began, and resided there. And during those days, Muawiyah didn’t come to Madinah. Rather after the peace agreement between Muawiyah and Hassan, Muawiyah came for Hajj and at that time, he met only the people of Madinah . And the second problem is that the answer of Saad ” It is because of three things” is against this explanation, because the excess of virtues of a person doesn’t stop from giving an advice and saying a good word to him. At the very most (غاية الامر) it would mean that Muawiyah did this ugly act. And this would not be the first ugly act that happened in Islam, for cursing is a lesser crime than killing. Hence it is mentioned in a Sahih hadith that cursing a Muslim is fisq, and killing him is kufr. And when it is clear that killings happened, so it is better that we consider it that they committed major sins, but we should keep silent regarding such issues. Similarly we should say as the sahaba said about those who committed adultery and drinkinng, may Allah be pleased with all of them. And the interference at every ijtihadi mistake is a vile act (i.e to blame people for their error in ijtihad is blameworthy).

Shah Abdul Aziz answered this question again in more detail.

Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat ‘Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camel. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about ‘Ali as he left behind him in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). ‘All said to him: Allah’s Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call ‘Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed: “Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fitima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.

Imam Nawawi says in its Sharh

Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Quote from Sharh Muslim ends]

Perhaps Saad was in some group and he didn’t mentioned bad words about Ali and he couldn’t stop other people as well, and due to this reason Muawiyah asked him this question. Ulemas say that aside from these, there are possibilities of other tawil as well, that is ‘it can mean that what has stopped you from saying that the ijtihad and opinion of Ali is wrong and my ijtihad and opinion is correct. And a shorter version of this narration is also present in Tirmidhi.

As you can see very well, Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned the various possibilities in which these words could have meant. Answering-Ansar not only did tahreef in the wordings of Shah Abdul Aziz by adding the words “The act of cursing Ali was introduced by Mu’awiya”  and “to explain this away in terms of ijtihad is wrong” but also didn’t mention the context, and the complete answer, clearly misleading the readers, and took only the extreme single possibility that Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned that at the very most, it can mean that Muawiyah did curse Ali. This doesn’t mean that this is the only possible meaning of the words of Muawiyah according to Shah Abdul Aziz.

In brief, Shah Abdul Aziz never said that Muawiyah introduced the act of cursing Ali, not did he say that Muawiyah cursed Ali.

 رضي الله عنهم اجمعين