Question 375 - The Enlightening Answer Across the Ether, Vol 4

Supporters Response:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send His prayers upon Muhammad and his family, the Imams and the Mahdis, and grant them abundant peace. I will mention to you what appears concerning this subject in the book The Best Response in Defense of Ahmed Alhasan, so that perhaps you will return to right judgment and seek forgiveness from your Lord: The First Pause: Among the objections al-Najafi imagined and about which he went to excess in manufacturing an uproar-an uproar from which mockery and vilification of Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan, the successor and messenger of Imam al-Mahdi (a), rose-is his claim that there are linguistic errors in the books authored by Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan. Al-Najafi claimed that this was proof that Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan was lying-far be it from him! The reply to him is: First: The errors that you regarded as fatal, and as impossible for one claiming knowledge to make, let alone one claiming to be sent by Imam al-Mahdi, are typographical errors. Hardly any book in the world is free of such errors. Even books containing the narrations of the Messenger Muhammad (s) and the Imams (a) are not free of such errors arising during printing and copying. Is this proof that they are false-far be it from them? Typographical errors have even occurred in certain editions of the Noble Quran. Is that to be considered evidence against the Quran and the One who sent down the Quran? May Allah Most High protect us from such a statement, which has no connection to truth and is instead among Satan's suggestions-may Allah curse him. Is it reasonable, Hasan al-Najafi, that Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan cannot distinguish whether prepositions put nouns into the accusative case or govern them in the genitive? This matter is not hidden even from those at the lowest educational levels. I would like to inform you that Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan is unsurpassed in the sciences of the Arabic language and knows it better than you and your masters. Yet in his writings he does not focus excessively on this to the same extent that he focuses on clarity of meaning and the force of argument and proof. The errors about which you held forth do not change the meaning. Most concern linguistic niceties that do more harm than good and arise from engrossment in Arabic, which the Ahl al-Bayt (a) forbade, as will be explained, Allah willing. You go to excess in adorning speech with embellished expressions, yet despite that your errors in the Arabic language are innumerable. Yes, you give the utmost attention to the outward form and husk of speech and abandon its core, meaning, reality, and spirit. Your speech is devoid of awe, humility, and true remembrance of Allah Most High because it does not emerge from a heart illuminated by the light of the One, the All-Subduing. By contrast, the addresses of Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan dominate hearts and spirits and ascend with them to the Kingdom of Allah (a). Yes, they dominate the hearts that sincerely and faithfully seek the truth. As for those in whose hearts there is sickness, they only increase them in sickness. Allah Most High said: ‘Whenever a surah is sent down, some of them say: Which of you has this increased in faith? As for those who believe, it increases them in faith and they rejoice. But as for those in whose hearts there is sickness, it adds filth to their filth, and they die as unbelievers’ (^[107]). I would like to inform Hasan al-Najafi, who went to excess in vilifying one whose books contain some linguistic errors, that his own book The Good Response is filled with linguistic errors. I counted nearly a hundred until I grew weary of counting and stopped, while some pages contain nearly ten or more errors. According to what you maintain, this is exceedingly disgraceful, and through it your book becomes ugly rather than good. This is your position, not ours. You ought to have interpreted Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan charitably rather than publicizing that he does not understand how prepositions govern, thereby attempting to deceive simple people and prevent them from saving themselves and following Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan, the promised Yamani. I am certain-indeed, I categorically affirm-that you know with certainty that knowledge of the function of prepositions, which is not hidden from a primary-school pupil, cannot be hidden from Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan. But you seized upon it to express your hatred and rancor toward Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan and thereby deceive the poor people. Where is the piety you claim? Have you taken into account that you will stand before Allah Most High and be questioned about this fabrication, or not? We learned from the people of infallibility to fight our enemies honorably, not with Muawiyah's cunning and devilry. Here, listen to the words of the Commander of the Believers (a): ‘Were it not for religion and piety, I would be the most cunning of the Arabs’ (^[108]). I swear to you by Allah, the Most High, the Magnificent, that when I found dozens of errors in your book, I did not conclude that you were ignorant of them and did not publicize them. Rather, I supposed they were errors you made inadvertently or that occurred during printing. How, then, is it permissible for you to conclude that Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan is ignorant of the simplest rules of the Arabic language because there are some errors in his books? Did you not consider that they may have occurred during printing? How can you accuse Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan of this when he has confounded everyone and silenced them from debating him concerning the Noble Quran, while his books on exegesis, doctrines, and ethics testify to that? Are you convinced, Hasan al-Najafi, that one who answers every question from the Quran and Sunnah is ignorant of the effect of prepositions upon nouns? Second: Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to concede and say that Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan himself did actually make errors, he did not announce that he is infallible in the Arabic language. Rather, he said that he is infallible in the sense that he does not admit the people into falsehood or remove them from truth. This is the objective for which the prophets and messengers (a) were sent and that ensures the people's entrance into Paradise and Allah Most High's pleasure. What benefit does a person receive if his statements are exceedingly precise and well weighed while his deeds are grammatically flawed, stumbling amid acts of ignorance and permitting forbidden things? And what harm befalls a person if his statements are grammatically flawed while his deeds are weighed by the scales of truth, justice, and fairness, commanding right and forbidding indecency and wrongdoing? This meaning was narrated from the Commander of the Believers (a): A man came to the Commander of the Believers (a) and said: ‘O Commander of the Believers, Bilal was debating so-and-so today and began to make grammatical errors in his speech, while so-and-so spoke grammatically and laughed at Bilal.’ The Commander of the Believers (a) said: ‘The grammatical inflection and correction of speech are only intended so that deeds may be made upright and refined. What benefit does so-and-so derive from his grammatical inflection and correction when his actions contain the ugliest grammatical errors? What harm does Bilal's grammatical error cause him when his actions are set upright in the finest manner and refined in the finest manner?’ (^[109]). I therefore say to you: What do you gain when your statements are sound while your deeds contain the most severe grammatical errors-such as your appeasement of the Americans, acceptance of their theory of democracy and positive constitution, and casting Allah Most High's Book behind your backs as though you do not know, along with dozens of other explicit contraventions of the Quran and purified Sunnah? What harm does Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan suffer if his statements contain grammatical errors-as you claim-while his deeds accord with the Quran and purified Sunnah, and he opposes the enemies of Allah Most High, the Jews and America, the enemy of peoples? The Exalted said: ‘The Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their creed. Say: Indeed, Allah's guidance is the guidance. If you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that came to you, you would have neither ally nor supporter against Allah’ (^[110]). Even in your objections you have resembled the enemies of Allah Most High's allies. Long ago, Pharaoh argued against Allah's prophet Moses (a) on the basis of his heavy tongue and his lack of clear, intelligible speech. Allah Most High said: ‘And Pharaoh called out among his people, saying: O my people, does the kingdom of Egypt not belong to me, with these rivers flowing beneath me? Do you not see? Or am I not better than this one who is contemptible and can scarcely make himself clear?’ (^[111]). It appears in Tafsir al-Qummi: ‘Then He related what Pharaoh and his companions said to Moses (a), saying: “And they said: O sorcerer”-meaning, O scholar-“invoke your Lord for us by what He has covenanted with you; indeed, we will be guided.” Then Pharaoh said: “Or am I not better than this one who is contemptible”-meaning Moses-“and can scarcely make himself clear?” He said: He did not make the speech clear’ (^[112]). Sheikh al-Tusi said in al-Tibyan: ‘… Pharaoh's statement, “and can scarcely make himself clear,” means that he does not bring an intelligible explanation-lying against him so as to mislead the people through that and turn their faces away from him’ (^[113]). Sheikh al-Tabrisi said in his exegesis: ‘The meaning of His statement, “and can scarcely make himself clear,” is: he does not bring an explanation and proof. They only said that deceptively, to turn faces away from him’ (^[114]). He also said: ‘… “and can scarcely make himself clear,” meaning that he can scarcely express himself clearly through his speech and proofs because of the knot in his tongue’ (^[115]). Al-Fayd al-Kashani said in his exegesis: ‘… Or am I not better, with this [kingdom; the Arabic source prints al-maslakah] and abundance, than this one who is contemptible, weak, and lowly, unfit for leadership, and can scarcely make his speech clear because of his speech impediment? How, then, is he fit for the message? …’ (^[116]). The likeness of one whose tongue is eloquent but whose heart is dark is that of a house with a lamp placed upon its roof: it is illuminated outside but dark within, and the devils have taken it as a dwelling. Many narrations have been transmitted confirming this meaning and explaining that a person's worth and standing follow from the purity of his heart and inner nature and are not measured by eloquence of tongue or ornamentation of speech: From Amr, from Abu Abdullah (a), who said to us one day: ‘You find a man who makes no error in a lam or a waw, an orator of consummate eloquence, yet his heart is darker than the darkest night. And you find a man who cannot express with his tongue what is in his heart, yet his heart shines as a lamp shines’ (^[117]). Mawla Muhammad Salih al-Mazandarani commented on this narration: ‘It contains a clear indication that a fine outward appearance, fluency of the tongue, and eloquence of expression have no value without the illumination, purity, and uprightness of the heart. What matters is the purity and luminosity of the inward, even if it is not accompanied by outward refinement. Allah, the Watchful Observer, does not look at your outward forms; rather, He looks at your inward forms. O Allah, illuminate our hearts with the light of faith’ (^[118]). I return and say: So long as Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan follows the way of the Prophet Muhammad (s) and his pure progeny (a), takes the Noble Quran as his emblem and covering, and opposes and fights Allah Most High's enemies-the Jews, Americans, and impure, filthy Nasibis-grammatical error of the tongue, if found, does not harm him. Nor does the eloquence of Sibawayh, al-Akhfash, and al-Farra benefit them if they oppose the two weighty things, the Quran and the progeny. Third: The Imams (a) specified the signs by which the Proof over creation is recognized, and they did not include precise knowledge of languages among them. Al-Harith ibn al-Mughirah said: ‘I said to Abu Abdullah (a): By what is the possessor of this matter recognized? He said: By serenity, dignity, knowledge, and the will’ (^[119]). The knowledge mentioned in the preceding narration does not include engrossment in learning the Arabic language, as demonstrated by the following narration: ‘From Abu al-Hasan Musa (a), who said: The Messenger of Allah (s) entered the mosque and found a group gathered around a man. He said: What is this? He was told: He is a great scholar. He said: What is a great scholar? They said: The person most knowledgeable concerning Arab genealogies, their battles, the days of ignorance, poetry, and Arabic. The Prophet (s) said: That is knowledge whose ignorance does not harm and whose possession does not benefit. Then the Prophet (s) said: Knowledge is only three things: a decisive verse, a just obligation, or an established Sunnah. Whatever lies beyond them is an excess’ (^[120]). Here the Prophet (s) described knowledge of genealogies, poetry, and Arabic as knowledge whose possession does not benefit and whose ignorance does not harm, an excess. He specified the sciences the believer should strive to acquire: a decisive verse, a just obligation, or an established Sunnah. Yes, we do not say that learning the sciences of the Arabic language is forbidden. But we say that one should restrict oneself only to the amount needed, abandon engrossment in it, and devote the days of one's life to studying and knowing the sciences of the Quran and Sunnah. It was narrated from al-Sadiq (a) that he said: ‘Whoever becomes engrossed in seeking grammar is stripped of humility’ (^[121]). He (a) also said: ‘The practitioners of Arabic distort words from their places’ (^[122]). From the Commander of the Believers (a): ‘You have greater need to put proper inflection upon deeds than to put proper inflection upon statements’ (^[123]). And from him (a): ‘Honor before Allah, Glorious is He, comes through good deeds, not fine statements’ (^[124]). Abu al-Azhar Nasih ibn Aliyah al-Barjami said in a lengthy narration: ‘A mosque opposite the house of al-Sindi ibn Shahik brought me together with Ibn al-Sikkit. We discussed Arabic, and with us was a man we did not know. He said: O people, you have greater need to set your religion upright than to set your tongues upright. He carried the discussion to the Imam of the time and said: Nothing separates you from him except this wall. We said: Do you mean Musa, this prisoner? He said: Yes. We said: We have concealed you, so rise and leave us, for fear that one of our companions might see you and we be seized because of you. He said: By Allah, they will never do that. By Allah, I only said to you what I said by his command’ (^[125]). All these narrations confirm the necessity of attending to reforming deeds, proceeding according to the radiant Muhammadan law, and abandoning excessive attention to correcting statements except to the extent that enables one to convey the message to people, make them understand, and guide them toward what sets right their condition in this world and the Hereafter. Moreover, every prophet or Proof is sent only in the tongue of his people. It is no secret that the tongue of our people in the present age is dialogue and mutual understanding in the prevalent colloquial language, not in formal Arabic. Indeed, the most eloquent person in this age does not attain the level of eloquence of housewives and children at the beginning of Islam. The person sent by Imam al-Mahdi (a) as his messenger and conveyor does not need more than that by which he can clarify the proof to the people and communicate with them in order to guide them to the straight path. This is indispensable. Anything beyond that is not required in the person sent by the Proof, Imam ibn al-Hasan-may our souls be ransomed for the dust beneath his feet-because this measure suffices to fulfill his mission, so what reason is there to require more? This added measure is entrusted to Imam al-Mahdi (a): if he wishes, he may take it into consideration in the person sent, and if he wishes, he may leave it. The people cannot argue against him on that basis. The answer will come to them: Our messenger conveyed the message and clarified it in an address understood by the scholar and the ignorant, the physician and the engineer, the farmer and the shepherd. Therefore, be despised in the Fire of Hell and do not speak to Me. Fourth: We must then know the meaning of the eloquence and lucidity for which the Messenger Muhammad (s) and the infallible Imams (a) were known. Are they, as some imagine, excessive mastery of the rules of Arabic known among us, or something else? Reflection on the preceding narrations makes clear that they are other than those rules known among the people. If those rules were what was intended by eloquence and lucidity, the Imams would not have forbidden becoming engrossed in studying them and described them as stripping away humility. The Messenger Muhammad (s) would not have described them as excess knowledge whose ignorance does not harm and whose possession does not benefit, and their practitioners would not have been described as distorting words from their places. Here are the following two narrations, from which it becomes clear that Imam al-Sadiq (a) contravened the rules of Arabic known among us: Muhammad ibn Muslim said: ‘Abu Abdullah (a) recited: “And Noah certainly called Us,” with “Noah” in the accusative. I said: Noah! Then I said: May I be your ransom, if only you would examine this-meaning Arabic. He said: Leave me free of your sahak’ (^[126]). Huwayzah ibn Asma said: ‘I said to Abu Abdullah (a): You are a man of merit; if only you would examine this Arabic. He said: I have no need of this sahak of yours’ (^[127]). In the Quranic sentence ‘And Noah certainly called Us,’ Noah is grammatically the subject. According to the rules of the Arabic language, the subject must always be in the nominative case, whereas Imam al-Sadiq (a) recited it in the accusative case. When the noble companion Muhammad ibn Muslim heard this, he said: ‘Noah!’ in astonishment, meaning: It is a subject in the nominative, not an object in the accusative. Then he suggested that Imam al-Sadiq (a) examine the rules of the Arabic language so as to avoid grammatical error in speech. He answered: ‘Leave me free of your sahak.’ Sahak means the foul, putrid odor that emanates from the armpit or from decomposing, spoiled flesh. Is there an uglier description than this? In the second narration, had Huwayzah ibn Asma not heard Imam al-Sadiq contravene the rules of Arabic, he would not have offered to have him examine Arabic. Al-Sadiq (a) answered him with the same answer he had given Muhammad ibn Muslim. So that we not be accused of attributing ignorance to the Imams (a), I say: Far be the Imams (a) from ignorance of such matters. Perhaps Imam al-Sadiq (a) intended to teach his Shia and distance them from restricting themselves to improving expressions and going to excess in scrutinizing them while neglecting the spirit and source of speech: sincerity and watchfulness of Allah Most High regarding what the tongue utters-whether disobedience or obedience. He may also have intended to draw attention to the fact that what matters in speech is the argument, proof, and decisive discourse, not ornamented and embellished expressions devoid of evidence and proof and from which no fear or awe of Allah Most High can be sensed. Or Imam al-Sadiq (a) may have intended to test those seated with him and test their faith in his Imamate (a). Or Imam al-Sadiq (a) may have intended to explain that the speech of the Imam and Proof over creation need not fully conform to the known rules of Arabic to the same extent that it conforms to the rules of the law-guidance, justice, fairness, wisdom, argument, and proof. In other words, he does not remove the people from truth or admit them into falsehood, as was narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt (a). Under every possibility, this supports Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan, because the narrations indicate that it is impermissible to object to an infallible person on the basis of Arabic. Had Hasan al-Najafi lived in the time of Imam al-Sadiq (a), perhaps he would have objected to him or doubted his Imamate as soon as he heard him contravene some rules of Arabic. Here are narrations stating that the infallible is one who does not remove people from guidance or admit them into falsehood-not one who is infallible in the Arabic language: The Messenger Muhammad (s) said: ‘… O Ali, convey my greeting to those among them whom I have not seen and who have not seen me. Inform them that they are my brothers for whom I long. Let them convey my knowledge to those who will transmit it to the generations after me. Let them hold fast to the rope of Allah and take refuge in it, and strive in deeds, for we do not take them from guidance into misguidance. Inform them that Allah (a) is pleased with them, boasts of them to His angels, looks upon them with mercy every Friday, and commands the angels to seek forgiveness for them’ (^[128]). It appears in the visitation of Imam al-Husayn (a): ‘… and the fifth of the People of the Cloak. The hand of mercy nourished you, you were raised in the lap of Islam, and you suckled from the breast of faith. You were good in life and death; may Allah send His prayers upon you. I testify that you conveyed truthfully and passed away with certainty. You did not prefer blindness over guidance, and you did not incline from truth toward falsehood’ (^[129]). The Commander of the Believers (a) said: ‘… Look to the household of your Prophet, adhere to their direction, and follow their footsteps. They will never take you out of guidance or return you to destruction. If they remain still, remain still; if they rise, rise. Do not precede them, lest you go astray, and do not lag behind them, lest you perish’ (^[130]). The Messenger of Allah (s) said: ‘Whoever would be pleased to live my life, die my death, and enter the Paradise my Lord promised me-a rod among its rods that He planted by hand and then said to it, “Be,” and it was-let him take Ali ibn Abi Talib (a) and the successors from my progeny as his guardians after me. They will not remove you from guidance or return you to destruction. Do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you’ (^[131]). Abu Jafar (a) said concerning Imam Ali and the Imams from his progeny: ‘… No guide is guided except through their guidance, and no one who departs from guidance goes astray except by falling short of their right, because they are Allah's trustees over the knowledge that descended …’ (^[132]). Abu Jafar (a) said: ‘Likewise are we, and praise be to Allah. We do not admit anyone into misguidance or remove him from guidance. This world will not pass away until Allah (a) sends a man from us, the Ahl al-Bayt, who acts according to Allah's Book and sees no wrongdoing among you without denouncing it’ (^[133]). The Commander of the Believers (a), describing the tribulations of the end times, said: ‘… Look to the household of your Prophet. If they remain still, remain still; if they ask you to support them, support them, and you will be granted victory and excused. They will never remove you from guidance or call you to destruction. Do not precede them by advancing, lest affliction strike you down and the enemies rejoice at you’ (^[134]). The Messenger of Allah (s) said: ‘Allah Most High placed the progeny of every prophet in his loins and placed my progeny in the loins of Ali ibn Abi Talib (a). Allah chose them just as He chose Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above the worlds. Follow them and they will guide you to a straight path. Put them forward and do not advance before them. They are the most forbearing of you when young and the most knowledgeable of you when old. Follow them: they will not admit you into misguidance or remove you from guidance’ (^[135]). The Messenger of Allah (s) said to Ammar: ‘The rebellious faction will kill you, and at that time you will be with the truth and the truth will be with you. O Ammar, if you see Ali take one valley and all the people take another valley, take Ali's valley, for he will never lower you into destruction or remove you from guidance …’ (^[136]). The Messenger of Allah (s) said: ‘O people, this is my brother, successor, and vicegerent after me, and the best one I leave behind. Therefore, assist and support him and do not hold back from him, for he will not admit you into misguidance or remove you from guidance’ (^[137]). We now return to explaining the meaning of eloquence and lucidity for which the Messenger Muhammad (s) and his infallible household were known. I say: Eloquence is the conveyance of meaning and the explanation of proof and argument through the clearest statement, without tedious prolixity or defective brevity. The Arabic word balaghah, eloquence, derives from bulugh, reaching. You say, ‘I reached the place,’ meaning that I arrived there. Eloquence is also lucidity. Lucidity is the clarity and explanation of speech without obscurity or defective generality, and the ready answer that silences an opponent. The Arabic word fasahah, lucidity, derives from ifsah, making clear and explaining while taking account of the listener's receptivity and comprehension. Lucidity has approximately the same meaning as eloquence. This is explained in Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Manzur: ‘F-s-h: fasahah means clarity. A man is fasih by fasahah; he is one lucid man among people who are fusaha, fisah, and fush …’ until he said: ‘It may appear in poetry describing non-Arabs as afsah, intending clarity of expression even if it is not in Arabic, as in Abu al-Najm's statement: “Unintelligible yet lucid in her ears,” meaning that the donkey's voice is unintelligible but lucid and clear in the ears of the she-donkeys. A non-Arab fasaha, with a dammah, fasahah: he spoke Arabic and was understood. It is also said: his language became sound until he made no grammatical errors. He made his speech clear, ifsahan. Afsaha means he spoke with lucidity; likewise a child. It is said that the child afsaha in his speech when what he says is understood at the beginning of his speaking. A mute person afsaha when his speech is understood after his muteness. He made a matter clear, ifsahan, when he explained and disclosed it. A man fasaha and tafassaha when he had an Arabic tongue and increased in lucidity … It is also said that all animals are of two types: speechless and lucid. The lucid is every speaking creature; the speechless is everything that does not speak. In the narration, “He is forgiven according to the number of every lucid and speechless being,” lucid means the children of Adam, and speechless means beasts. A lucid person in language is one whose tongue flows in speech and who knows good speech from bad. He made speech clear, made it clear by means of it, and made the matter clear. It is said: Speak plainly to me, so-and-so, and do not mumble. He said: In common speech, fasih means one who speaks grammatical Arabic. A mufsih day is one with neither cloud nor cold. Al-Azhari said: Ibn Shumayl said: This is a clear day, as you see, when there is no cold in it. Fash means clear weather free of cold … The morning made itself clear: its light appeared and became evident. Everything that becomes clear has made itself clear; everything clear is mufsih. It is said: The morning fasahaka, meaning that it became apparent to you and its light overcame you. Some say fadahaka. Al-Lihyani related: The morning fasahahu, meaning that it came upon him. So-and-so made it clear to you: he explained and did not mumble. A man emerged clearly from such-and-such when he came out of it’ (^[138]). In extreme summary, the meaning of eloquence and lucidity is the power and ready presence of argument and proof, together with clarifying the meaning in the fewest words and the easiest words for the listener, while accurately choosing expressions and harmonizing them with meanings. Let us leave our definition and those of the linguists, and ask the Ahl al-Bayt (a) about the meaning of eloquence and lucidity, for their statement is just and decisive, and beyond truth there is nothing but manifest error: From Zayd ibn Ali, from his father (a), who said: Ali ibn Abi Talib (a) was asked: ‘Who is the most lucid of people?’ He said: ‘The one who, when suddenly questioned, gives a reply that silences’ (^[139]). This means that the most lucid of people is the one who, when taken by surprise by a question, gives an answer that silences and bridles his opponent. This depends upon the force of the argument and its dominance over the opponent's argument. Thus, one whose argument is weak when surprised by a question is not lucid even if he has mastered every art of the Arabic language, because mastery of Arabic is one matter and completion of the proof is another. Not everyone who masters Arabic has a complete proof, and not everyone who has a complete proof has mastered Arabic. Between them is a relationship that is general and particular in different respects, as logicians express it. Thus, one whose proof is complete is lucid even if he has not mastered Arabic. From Abu Jafar (a), concerning: ‘Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them from His bounty?’ (^[140]), who said: ‘We are the people, we are the ones envied, and it was sent down concerning us.’ He said: ‘Allah Most High gave the believer a sound body, a lucid tongue, and a sincere heart. He charged each of these members with obedience to Himself, His Prophet, and His vicegerents: from the body, service to Him and to them; from the tongue, testimony to Him; and from the heart, reassurance through remembering Him and remembering them. Whoever testifies with the tongue, is reassured within the heart, and acts with the limbs, Allah admits him to the gardens’ (^[141]). From Imam Ali (a): ‘Eloquence is what is easy upon speech and light upon discernment’ (^[142]). And from him (a): ‘Eloquence is to answer without delay and strike the mark without error’ (^[143]). From Imam al-Sadiq (a): ‘Eloquence does not consist in sharpness of tongue or abundant raving. Rather, it is striking the meaning and aiming at the proof’ (^[144]). Here Imam al-Sadiq (a) explains to us that eloquence is not sharpness of tongue-sharpness being the absence of hesitation during speech or the presence of obscenity-nor an abundance of speech empty of meaning and proof even if it conforms perfectly to the rules of the Arabic language. Rather, eloquence is striking and clarifying the intended meaning and aiming at the proof and completing it for what is sought. A slight contravention of Arabic rules does not conflict with this. Yes, a flagrant contravention of Arabic rules may take speech beyond the limits of eloquence and lucidity, but this rarely occurs among the possessors of argument and proof. One of them (a), when asked about eloquence, said: ‘Whoever knows a matter speaks little concerning it. The eloquent person is only called eloquent because he attains his need with the least effort’ (^[145]). From al-Sadiq (a): ‘Three things contain eloquence: drawing near to the meaning sought, distancing oneself from superfluous speech, and indicating much through little’ (^[146]). From Imam Ali (a): ‘Brevity may suffice as eloquence’ (^[147]). And from him (a): ‘The most eloquent eloquence is that whose passage toward correctness is easy and whose brevity is fine’ (^[148]). And from him (a): ‘The finest speech is that adorned by fine order and understood by the elite and common alike’ (^[149]). This means that the most lucid and eloquent speech is ordered and interconnected in its parts and proofs so that the elite and common understand it-that is, people understand it despite their differing levels of understanding and knowledge. One who wishes to speak with the common people is not considered lucid if his speech contains expressions understood only by the elite in understanding and knowledge. Rather, he is not lucid unless he comes down to the language of the people and speaks with them in what they understand, even if he must speak in the prevalent colloquial language. This is because lucidity is clarification and explanation, addressing people according to the measure of their intellects and through what they understand, so that the ears find the speech congenial and the minds are not exhausted by understanding it, as in the following report: From the Commander of the Believers (a): ‘The finest speech is that which the ears do not reject and whose understanding does not tire the intellects’ (^[150]). And from him (a): ‘More praiseworthy than eloquence is silence when speech is inappropriate’ (^[151]). From the Messenger of Allah (s): ‘The people most hateful to Allah Most High are the eloquent one who moves his tongue through his mouth as the cow moves its tongue’ (^[152]). And from him (s): ‘Allah truly hates the eloquent man who plays with his tongue as the cow plays’ (^[153]). And from him (s): ‘May Allah curse those who split speeches into parts as poetry is split’ (^[154]). And from him (s): ‘The worst of my nation are the garrulous, the ranting, and the pompous; the best of my nation are those with the finest character’ (^[155]). The shidq is the side of the mouth, and the mutashaddiq is one who moves the side of his mouth during speech to display his eloquence before the people. Such people are cursed upon the tongue of the Messenger of Allah (s), because their only concern is to appear before the people as eloquent speakers, or to have the people call them scholars because their speech is difficult to understand. They abandon consideration for the people and concern for guiding them through the easiest discourse nearest to their minds. Add to that what accompanies ranting: self-admiration, showing off, arrogance, and other satanic diseases. Tafayhuq in speech is expansion and excessive depth, and it is also derived from fullness, as though one fills his mouth with speech-consult Sihah al-Jawhari. The affectation, love of prominence, and praise within this are no secret. Add to that how difficult it is for ordinary people to understand such expanded and excessively deep speech. From Imam Ali (a): ‘The instrument-“sign” in another reading-of eloquence is an understanding heart and a speaking tongue’ (^[156]). And from him (a): ‘The eloquent person may fall silent before his proof; the lucid person may be unable to produce an answer’ (^[157]). And from him (a): ‘The truest statement is that spoken by the tongue of one's condition’ (^[158]). Fifth: The fourth point made clear that eloquence and lucidity are clarity of argument and evidence, quickness of reply, silencing the opponent, and conveying the meaning to the listener in the plainest and fewest words. I categorically affirm that if every fair person free of blind prejudice compares the addresses, declarations, and books of Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan with the books, addresses, and declarations of others, he will find the speech of others to be the soil and Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan's speech to be the Pleiades. Indeed, comparing Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan with others is an injustice to him, just as you wrong the sword when you describe it as sharper than a stick. Who, then, is more lucid and eloquent: the one who has confounded everyone through clear argument and proof understood by elite and common alike, drawn from the Quran and purified Sunnah, or those who fled from debating him or replying to his books and proofs-or those who confronted him with whims and deficient rational opinions that contradict the two weighty things, the Quran and purified Sunnah? Who is more eloquent and lucid: the one whose speech dominates intellects and hearts and ascends with them to the Kingdom of the Heavens, whose discourse is the Quran and Sunnah-or those who contravened the Quran and Sunnah, acknowledged the people's sovereignty, followed Western thought-democracy-cast aside Allah Most High's Book, and followed satanic positive law, thereby lowering the people to the bottom of Hell with the one who usurped the right of the Commander of the Believers? Allah Most High said: ‘Say: Is there among your partners anyone who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is one who guides to the truth more worthy of being followed, or one who does not find guidance unless he is guided? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?’ (^[159]). The Scientific Committee Supporters of Imam al-Mahdi (may Allah establish him upon the earth) Sheikh Nazim al-Uqayli