Question 809 - The Enlightening Answer Across the Ether, Vol 7

Ahmed al-Hasan Response:

I offered them the oath of disavowal on the basis that I would swear it for their senior figures-their religious authorities-if they requested it from me, on condition that they then believe in the Call. This will certainly be realized if they believe in the oath of disavowal and in punishment descending upon the liar, particularly when the matter is a claim to the Imamate, concerning which it is narrated that destruction is the portion of one who falsely claims it, even after some time and without his swearing, because granting him respite would entice people, especially when he presents evidence and proof. Hence the Most High said, emphasizing this matter: ‘Had he falsely attributed some statements to Us, We would surely have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have severed his aorta’ [al-Haqqah 69:44–46]. If Allah destroys a claimant to a divine office when he is a lying fabricator, then what of his swearing this oath of disavowal? What we sought was to make them understand it as evidence for the truth and its possessor despite the intensity of their pursuit and the many who assist them. It is known that America is with them-may Allah disgrace them and, by His grace, save us from the wrongdoing people. By Allah, I swear by my Lord’s might and majesty that meeting my Lord is the most beloved thing to my heart, and death to me is like a drink of cold water amid intense heat and thirst. This is what I intended by the oath, specifically the oath of disavowal: that I swear it for them. An oath is ordinarily taken by someone who claims a matter and whom people accuse of lying, so he swears to them that he is truthful. Thus Allah, Glorious is He, swore to the people concerning the truthfulness of the message of the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family): ‘By the Lord of the heaven and the earth, it is surely the truth, just as surely as you speak’ [al-Dhariyat 51:23]. As for a person who wants to deny and disbelieve a call, making his oath evidence that it is false, this is foolishness itself. The correct course is to investigate the proofs of the Call and consider whether they are complete and constitute conclusive proof. If he decides to deny it, he must bring conclusive evidence for his denial and accusation of falsehood, because he needs to refute the evidence; otherwise he remains refuted before rational people and Allah, Glorious is He, because he disbelieved in what he did not encompass in knowledge while the complete proof stood unrefuted. Some may even disbelieve without hearing the complete proof. The Most High said: ‘Rather, they denied what they did not encompass in knowledge and whose interpretation had not yet come to them. Thus those before them denied; so observe how the end of the wrongdoers was’ [Yunus 10:39]. We brought to them-the non-practicing Shia scholars-what is in their own books, but they disbelieved in the testament of the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family) and the narrations of the Imams (peace be upon them). Thus the Most High’s saying applies to them: ‘When a messenger from Allah came to them confirming what was with them, a group of those given the Book cast the Book of Allah behind their backs as though they did not know’ [al-Baqarah 2:101]. I say to them: if a believer knew of this Call through nothing but the testament of the Messenger of Allah, it would suffice him as a complete proof before Allah, Glorious and Most High; it would suffice for him to write it upon his shroud as a proof before Allah. Do you deny the proof of one who argues from Muhammad’s testament? What, then, when the proofs of this Call from the narrations of the Messenger and the Imams in the books of every Muslim sect are exceedingly numerous, such that Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi, Ismaili, Alawi, and others have believed? If the deniers possess the true belief pleasing to Allah, as they claim, they should refute the proofs brought by the Call of truth and establish the soundness of their belief, which this Call has demolished and clearly shown to be manifest misguidance-manifest even to livestock. But what can we do concerning those the Most High described: ‘Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like livestock; rather, they are farther astray in their path’ [al-Furqan 25:44]? In any case, if they believe that punishment and destruction befall the one who swears or engages in mutual imprecation, let them believe on account of the destruction of Haydar Mushtat. But how could they, when they are devils provoked by devils, leaping like monkeys whenever they hear of this Call, so that Allah may expose their transformation into monkeys for every rational person who understands Allah’s signs: ‘When they insolently persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them, “Be apes, despised”’ [al-Aʿraf 7:166]. Ahmed Alhasan