<p class='libAr' dir='rtl'>قال أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين مصنف هذا الكتاب - رضي الله عنه -: نحن نستدل على أن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله قد نص على علي بن أبي طالب، واستخلفه، وأوجب فرض طاعته على الخلق بالأخبار الصحيحة. وهي قسمان:قسم قد جامعنا عليه خصومنا في نقله وخالفونا في تأويله، وقسم قد خالفونا في نقله فالذي يجب علينا في ما وافقونا في نقله. أن نريهم بتقسيم الكلام ورده إلى مشهور اللغات والاستعمال المعروف أن معناه هو ما ذهبنا إليه من النص والاستخلاف دون ما ذهبوا هم إليه من خلاف ذلك، والذي يجب علينا فيما خالفونا في نقله أن نبين أنه ورد ورودا يقطع مثله العذر، وأنه نظير ما قد قبلوه وقطع عذرهم واحتجوا به على مخاليفهم من الاخبار التي تفردوا هم بنقلها دون مخالفيهم وجعلوها مع ذلك قاطعة للعذر وحجة على من خالفهم فنقول وبالله نستعين: إنا ومخالفينا قد روينا عن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله أنه قام يوم غدير خم وقد جمع المسلمين فقال: أيها الناس ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ فقالوا: اللهم بلى. قال: فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه، اللهم وال من والاه، وعاد من عاداه، وانصر من نصره، واخذل من خذله. ثم نظرنا في معنى قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم " ثم [في] معنى قوله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " فوجدنا ذلك ينقسم في اللغة على وجوه لا يعلم في اللغة غيرها - أنا ذاكرها. إن شاء الله - ونظرنا فيما يجمع له النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله الناس ويخطب به ويعظم الشأن فيه فإذا هو شئ لا يجوز أن يكونوا علموه فكرره عليهم، ولا شئ لا يفيدهم بالقول فيه معنى لان ذلك في صفة العابث والعبث عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله منفي فنرجع إلى ما يحتمله لفظة المولى في اللغة. يحتمل أن يكون المولى مالك الرق كما يملك المولى عبيده وله أن يبيعه ويهبه، ويحتمل أن يكون المولى المعتق من الرق، ويحتمل أن يكون المولى المعتق وهذه الأوجه الثلاثة مشهورة عند الخاصة والعامة فهي ساقطة في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله لأنه لا يجوز أن يكون عنى بقوله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " واحدة منها لأنه لا يملك بيع المسلمين ولا عتقهم من رق العبودية ولا أعتقوه عليه السلام ويحتمل أيضا أن يكون المولى ابن العم، قال الشاعر: مهلا بني عمنا مهلا موالينا * لم تظهرون لنا ما كان مدفونا ويحتمل أن يكون المولى العاقبة، قال الله عز وجل: " مأويكم النار هي موليكم " أي عاقبتكم وما يؤول بكم الحال إليه، ويحتمل أن يكون المولى لما يلي الشئ مثل خلفه وقدامه، قال الشاعر: فغدت، كلا الفرجين تحسب أنه * مولى المخافة خلفها وأمامها ولم نجد أيضا شيئا من هذه الأوجه يجوز أن يكون النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله عناه بقوله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " لأنه لا يجوز أن يقول: من كنت ابن عمه فعلي ابن عمه لان ذلك معروف معلوم وتكريره على المسلمين عبث بلا فائدة. وليس يجوز أن يعني به عاقبة أمرهم ولا خلف ولا قدام لأنه لا معنى له ولا فائدة. ووجدنا اللغة تجيز أن يقول الرجل: " فلان مولاي " إذا كان مالك طاعته، فكان هذا هو المعنى الذي عناه النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله بقوله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " لان الأقسام التي تحتملها اللغة لم يجز أن يعنيها بما بيناه ولم يبق قسم غير هذا فوجب أن يكون هو الذي عناه بقوله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " ومما يؤكد ذلك قوله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم " ثم قال: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " فدل ذلك على أن معنى " مولاه " هو أنه أولى بهم من أنفسهم لان المشهور في اللغة والعرف أن الرجل إذا قال لرجل: إنك أولى بي من نفسي، فقد جعله مطاعا آمرا عليه ولا يجوز أن يعصيه. وإنا لو أخذنا بيعة على رجل وأقر بأنا أولى به من نفسه لم يكن له أن يخالفنا في شئ مما نأمره به لأنه إن خالفنا بطل معنى إقراره بأنا أولى به من نفسه، ولان العرب أيضا إذا أمر منهم إنسان إنسانا بشئ وأخذه بالعمل به وكان له أن يعصيه فعصاه قال له: يا هذا أنا أولى بنفسي منك، إن لي أن أفعل بها ما أريد، وليس ذلك لك مني. فإذا كان قول الانسان: " أنا أولى بنفسي منك " يوجب له أن يفعل بنفسه ما يشاء إذا كان في الحقيقة أولى بنفسه من غيره، وجب لمن هو أولى بنفسه منه أن يفعل به ما يشاء ولا يكون له أن يخالفه ولا يعصيه إذا كان ذلك كذلك. ثم قال النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم. فأقروا له عليه السلام بذلك ثم قال متبعا لقوله الأول بلا فصل: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " فقد علم أن قوله " مولاه " عبارة عن المعنى الذي أقروا له بأنه أولى بهم من أنفسهم، فإذا كان إنما عنى بقوله: " من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " أي أولى به فقد جعل ذلك لعلي بن أبي طالب عليه السلامبقوله: " فعلي مولاه " لأنه لا يصلح أن يكون عنى بقوله: " فعلي مولاه " قسما من الأقسام التي أحلنا أن يكون النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله عناها في نفسه، لان الأقسام هي أن يكون مالك رق، أو معتقا، أو ابن عم، أو عاقبة، أو خلفا، أو قداما. فإذا لم يكن لهذه الوجوه فيه صلى الله عليه وعلى آله معنى لم يكن لها في علي عليه السلام أيضا معنى، وبقي ملك الطاعة، فثبت أنه عناه، وإذا وجب ملك طاعة المسلمين لعلي عليه السلام فهو معنى الإمامة لان الإمامة إنما هي مشتقة من الايتمام بالانسان والايتمام هو الاتباع والاقتداء والعمل بعمله والقول بقوله، وأصل ذلك في اللغة سهم يكون مثالا يعمل عليه السهام، ويتبع بصنعه صنعها و بمقداره مقدارها. فإذا وجبت طاعة علي عليه السلام على الخلق استحق معنى الإمامة. فإن قالوا: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله إنما جعل لعلي عليه السلام بهذا القول فضيلة شريفة و إنها ليست الإمامة. قيل لهم: هذا في أول تأدي الخبر إلينا قد كانت النفوس تذهب إليه، فأما تقسيم الكلام وتبيين ما يحتمله وجوه لفظة " المولى " في اللغة حتى يحصل المعنى الذي جعله لعلي عليه السلام بها فلا يجوز ذلك، لأنا قد رأينا أن اللغة تجيز في لفظة " المولى " وجوها كلها لم يعنها النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله بقوله في نفسه ولا في علي عليه السلام وبقي معنى واحد، فوجب أنه الذي عناه في نفسه وفى علي عليه السلام وهو ملك الطاعة. فإن قالوا: فلعله قد عنى معنى لم نعرفه لأنا لا نحيط باللغة. قيل لهم: ولو جاز ذلك لجاز لنا في كل ما نقل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وكل ما في القرآن أن نقول لعله عنى به ما لم يستعمل في اللغة وتشكل فيه وذلك تعليل وخروج عن التفهم ونظير قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم " فلما أقروا له بذلك قال: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " قول رجل لجماعة: أليس هذا المتاع بيني وبينكم نبيعه والربح بيننا نصفان والوضيعة كذلك؟ فقالوا له: نعم. قال: فمن كنت شريكه فزيد شريكه. فقد أعلم أن ما عناه بقوله: " فمن كنت شريكه " [أنه] إنما عنى به المعنى الذي قررهم به بدءا من بيع المتاع واقتسام الربح والوضيعة، ثم جعل ذلك المعنى الذي هو الشركة لزيد بقوله: " فزيد شريكه ". وكذلك قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم " وإقرارهم له بذلك ثم قوله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " إنما هو إعلام أنه عنى بقول، المعنى الذي أقروا به بدءا وكذلك جعله لعلي عليه السلام بقوله: " فعلي مولاه " كما جعل ذلك الرجل الشركة لزيد بقوله: " فزيد شريكه " ولا فرق في ذلك. فإن ادعى مدع أنه يجوز في اللغة غير ما بيناه فليأت به ولن يجده. فإن اعترض بما يدعونه من خبر زيد بن حارثة وغيره من الاخبار التي يختصون بها لم يكن ذلك لهم لأنهم راموا أن يخصوا معنى خبر ورد بإجماع بخبر رووه دوننا، وهذا ظلم لان لنا أخبار كثيرة تؤكد معنى " من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " وتدل على أنه إنما استخلفه بذلك وفرض طاعته، هكذا نروي نصا في هذا الخبر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وعن علي عليه السلام فيكون خبرنا المخصوص بإزاء خبرهم المخصوص ويبقى الخبر على عمومه نحتج به نحن وهم بما توجبه اللغة والاستعمال فيها وتقسيم الكلام ورده إلى الصحيح منه، ولا يكون لخصومنا من الخبر المجمع عليه ولا من دلالته مالنا، وبإزاء ما يروونه من خبر زيد ابن حارثة أخبار قد جاءت على ألسنتهم شهدت بأن زيدا أصيب في غزوة مؤتة مع جعفر بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وذلك قبل يوم غدير خم بمدة طويلة لان يوم الغدير كان بعد حجة الوداع ولم يبق النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله بعده إلا أقل من ثلاثة أشهر، فإذا كان بإزاء خبركم في زيد ما قد رويتموه في نقضة لم يكن ذلك لكم حجة على الخبر المجمع عليه، ولو أن زيد كان حاضرا قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله يوم الغدير لم يكن حضوره بحجة لكم أيضا لان جميع العرب عالمون بأن مولى النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله مولى أهل بيته وبني عمه [و] مشهور ذلك في لغتهم وتعارفهم فلم يكن لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله للناس: اعرفوا ما قد عرفتموه وشهر بينكم لأنه لو جاز ذلك لجاز أن يقول قائل: ابن أخي أب النبي ليس بابن عمه. فيقوم النبي فيقول: فمن كان ابن أخي أبي فهو ابن عمي. وذلك فاسد لأنه عيب وما يفعله إلا اللاعب السفيه، وذلك منفي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله. فإن قال قائل: إن لنا أن نروي في كل خبر نقلته فرقتنا ما يدل على معنى " من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه ". قيل له: هذا غلط في النظر لان عليك أن تروي من أخبارنا أيضا ما يدل على معنى الخبر مثل ما جعلته لنفسك في ذلك فيكون خبرنا الذي نختص به مقاوما لخبرك الذي يختص به ويبقى " من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " من حيث أجمعنا على نقله حجة لنا عليكم موجبا ما أوجبناه به من الدلالة على النص وهذا كلام لا زيادة فيه. فإن قال قائل: فهلا أفصح النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله باستخلاف علي عليه السلامإن كان كما تقولون وما الذي دعاه إلى أن يقول فيه قولا يحتاج فيه إلى تأويل وتقع فيه المجادلة. قيل له: لو لزم أن يكون الخبر باطلا أو لم يرد به النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله المعنى الذي هو الاستخلاف وإيجاب فرض الطاعة لعلي عليه السلام لأنه يحتمل التأويل، أو لان غيره عندك أبين وأفصح عن المعنى للزمك إن كنت معتزليا أن الله عز وجل لم يرد بقوله في كتابه: " لا تدركه الابصار " أي لا يرى لان قولك " لا يرى " يحتمل التأويل، وإن الله عز وجل لم يرد بقوله كتابه: " والله خلقكم وما تعملون " أنه خلق الأجسام التي تعمل فيها العباد دون أفعالهم فإنه لو أراد ذلك لأوضحه بأن يقول قولا لا يقع فيه التأويل وأن يكون الله عز وجل لم يرد بقوله: " ومن يقتلمؤمنا متعمدا فجزاؤه جهنم " أن كل قاتل للمؤمن ففي جهنم، كانت معه أعمال صالحة أم لا، لأنه لم يبين ذلك بقول لا يحتمل التأويل. وإن كنت أشعريا لزمك ما لزم المعتزلة بما ذكرناه كله لأنه لم يبين ذلك بلفظ يفصح عن معناه الذي هو عندك بالحق، وإن كان من أصحاب الحديث قيل له: يلزمك أن لا يكون قال النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " إنكم ترون ربكم كما ترون القمر في ليلة البدر لا تضامون في رؤيته " لأنه قال قولا يحتمل التأويل ولم يفصح به، وهو لا يقول: ترونه بعيونكم لا بقلوبكم. ولما كان هذا الخبر يحتمل التأويل ولم يكن مفصحا علمنا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله لم يعن به الرؤية التي ادعيتموها وهذا اختلاط شديد لان أكثر [ال‍] كلام في القرآن وأخبار النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله بلسان عربي ومخاطبة لقوم فصحاء على أحوال تدل على مراد النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله. وربما وكل علم المعنى إلى العقول أن يتأمل الكلام. ولا أعلم عبارة عن معنى فرض الطاعة أوكد من قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم "؟ ثم قوله: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " لأنه كلام مرتب على إقرار المسلمين للنبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله يعني الطاعة وأنه أولى بهم من أنفسهم ثم قال صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " فمن كنت أولى به من نفسه فعلي أولى به من نفسه " لان معنى " فمن كنت مولاه " هو فمن كنت أولى به من نفسه لأنها عبارة عن ذلك بعينه، إذ كان لا يجوز في اللغة غير ذلك، ألا ترى أن قائلا لو قال لجماعة: أليس هذا المتاع بيننا نبيعه ونقتسم الربح والوضيعة فيه؟ فقالوا له: نعم. فقال: " فمن كنت شريكه فزيد شريكه " كان كلاما صحيحا والعلة في ذلك أن الشركة هي عبارة عن معنى قول القائل: " هذا المتاع بيننا نقتسم الربح والوضيعة " فلذلك صح بعد قول القائل: " فمن كنت شريكه فزيد شريكه " وكذلك [هنا] صح بعد قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم [فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه "] لان مولاه عبارة عن قوله: " ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم " وإلا فمتى لم تكن اللفظة التي جاءت مع الفاء الأولى عبارة عن المعنى الأول لم يكن الكلام منتظما أبدا ولا مفهوما ولا صوابا بل يكون داخلا في الهذيان، ومن أضاف ذلك إلى رسول صلى الله عليه وعلى آله كفر بالله العظيم، وإذا كانت لفظة " فمن كنت مولاه " تدل على من كنت أولى به من نفسه على ما أرينا وقد جعلها بعينها لعلي عليه السلام قد جعل أن يكون علي عليه السلام أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم وذلك هو الطاعة لعلي عليه السلام كما بيناه بدءا. ومما يزيد ذلك بيانا أن قوله عليه السلام: " فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه " لو كان لم يرد بهذا أنه أولى بكم من أنفسكم جاز أن يكون لم يرد بقوله صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " فمن كنت مولاه " أي من كنت أولى [به] من نفسه وإن جاز ذلك لزم الكلام الذي من قبل هذا من أنه يكون كلاما مختلطا فاسدا غير منتظم ولا مفهم معنى ولا مما يلفظ به حكيم ولا عاقل، فقد لزم بما مر من كلامنا وبينا أن معنى قول النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله: " ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم " أنه يملك طاعتهم،، ولزم أن قوله: " فمن كنت مولاه " إنما أراد به: فمن كنت أملك طاعته فعلي يملك طاعته بقوله: " فعلي مولاه " وهذا واضح والحمد لله على معونته وتوفيقه.Abu Ja’far, Muhammed bin Ali bin Hussain, the compiler of this book, may Allah be pleased with him, said: We bring evidence to that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, indeed, affirmed for Ali bin Abi Talib, declared him as his successor and imposed the obligation of obedience to him upon the creation, with authentic reports. They are two parts: one part which we are of consensus between us and our opponents with regards to its transmission, and which they oppose us with regards to its interpretation; and one part which they have opposed us with regards to its transmission. Hence, what is obligatory upon us with regards to what they accord with us about its transmission, is to make them aware of dividing the speech and referring it to the common language and accustomed use that its meaning is what we have reached with regards to affirmation and declaration of Successorship, not what they have reached which is in opposition to that. Moreover, what is obligatory upon us with regards to what they have opposed us about its transmission, is that we clarify that it has been mentioned in a manner whose like invalidates the excuse (of doubt) and that it is equal to what they have accepted, invalidated their excuse (of doubt) and argued with against their opponents, of reports which were transmitted exclusively by them, not their opponents, and which they in spite of that made as invalidators of excuse (of doubt) and an argument against those who opposed them. Thus, we say, and by Allah we seek assistance: Indeed, we and our opponents have narrated of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, that he stood on the Day of Ghadeer Khumm whilst he had gathered the Muslims and said: O people, do I not have more authority upon the believers than they have over themselves? Then they said: Sure. He said: Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla. O Allah, befriend those who befriend, antagonize those who antagonize him, support those who support him and abandon those who abandon him. Furthermore, we looked into the meaning of the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they have over themselves. Then, into his saying: Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla. We found that linguistically, this divides into indications which we do not know, in the language, about others of. I will mention them, if Allah wills. Also, we looked into what the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, gathers the people to, gives a speech for and magnifies its regard. Hence, if it is a thing which they may not possibly have known, but which he repeated for them, and that there was nothing that does not benefit them for it to be spoken about, it would mean that this includes the characteristic of a frivol, whereas frivolity is negated from Allah’s Messenger, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, and so, we must refer to what is possibly meant with the term Mawla in the language. It is possible that a Mawla means the owner of a slave, like how a master owns his slave and may sell or gift him, and it is possible that a Mawla means the one liberated from slavery, and it is possible that a Mawla means the liberator. These three indications are well-known among the Khaassa [2] and the ‘Aamma [3], and they are invalid in the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, because it is not possible that he meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla » one of them, because he does not possess the selling of Muslims, nor liberation of them from the condition of slavery, nor did they liberate him, peace be upon him. It is also possible that a Mawla means the son of one’s paternal uncle. The poet said: Slowly, O sons of our paternal uncles. Slowly, our Mawali [4]. Why do you express to us what used to be buried? It is possible that a Mawla means consequence. Allah, Exalted and Glorious is He, said: «Your refuge is the Fire, it is your final destination.» (57:15) It means: Your consequence and what your case will end as. It is possible that a Mawla means what follows a thing, such as being behind it and in front of it. The poet said: Then it became then next morning, both reliefs assumed that it was the follower of fear, behind it and in front of it. We also found none of these indications being possible that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, had meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla » because he cannot have possibly said: Whoever I am the son of his paternal uncle, then Ali is the son of his paternal uncle. This is because that is apprehended and known, and for it to be repeated for the Muslims is frivolity with no benefit. Also, it is not possible that he could have meant with it the consequence of their matter, nor that he was behind nor at front, because it has no meaning and no benefit. Furthermore, we found the language permitting a man to say «Such-a-person is my Mawla» if he is the possessor of his obedience. This was the meaning that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» because the fractions which the language may include cannot be possible that he had meant, due to what we have clarified. Hence, no fraction remains but this one, and so, it must be that it is what he, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, meant with his saying: Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla. Among what confirms that is the saying of him, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they over themselves» and that he then said: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla». Thus, that denotes that the meaning of «his Mawla» is that he has more authority upon them than they have upon themselves, because what is mostly used in the language and what is customary practice is that if a man says to another man: «You have more authority upon me than I have over myself» then he has made him one who is obeyed, one who commands him, and that it is not permissible for him to disobey him. If we were to take a pledge of allegiance upon a man and he would acknowledge that we have more authority upon us than we have over ourselves, it would not be permissible for him to oppose us in anything of what we command him to, because if he would oppose us, the meaning of his acknowledgement that we have more authority upon him than he has over himself, is invalidated. Also, it is because that among the Arabs, if one person commands another person to something which he would take him to act upon and which he is permitted to disobey, to which he disobeyed, he would say to him: O you, I have more authority upon myself than you have. Indeed, I can do it as long as I want, and that is not for you (to dictate) from me. Hence, if the saying of the person «I have more authority upon myself than you have» necessitates that he does with himself what he wishes if he truly had more authority upon himself than others have, it would necessitate for him who has more authority upon him than he has to do with him what he wishes, and it would not be permissible for him to oppose him nor disobey him, if that is as such. Furthermore, the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, said: Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they over themselves? Then they acknowledged to him, peace be upon him, after that, and then he said, following his first saying, with no separation: Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla. Thus, it becomes known that his saying «his Mawla» expresses the meaning which they had acknowledged to regarding that he has more authority upon them than they have over themselves. If he had only meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» that he has more authority over him, then he has certainly done that for Ali bin Abi Talib, peace be upon him, with his saying «then Ali is his Mawla» because it is not suitable that he meant with his saying «then Ali is his Mawla» one of the fractions which we concluded as impossible for the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, to have meant of himself. This is because the fractions were that he is an owner of a slave, liberated, son of a paternal uncle, consequence, behind or at front. If these indications had no meaning in him, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, they would have no indication in Ali, peace be upon him, as well. What remains is the possession of obedience, and hence, it becomes confirmed that he meant it, and if the possession of the Muslims’ obedience belongs to Ali, peace be upon him, then this is the meaning of Imamate , because Imamate is only derived from emulating a person, and emulation is to follow, to take after, to act by his act and to say by his saying. The origin of that in the language is an arrow that is an example by which arrows act in accordance to, by whose act and measure their acts and measures follow. Hence, if obedience to Ali, peace be upon him, is obligatory upon the creation, it would deserve the meaning of Imamate. If they are to say: Indeed, the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, only made this saying for Ali, peace be upon him, a noble virtue, and it is not Imamate. It would be said to them: This is what the mind reaches at the first sight of the report to us. As for dividing the speech and clarifying the indications of the phrase Mawla in the language until we reach the meaning he made with it for Ali, peace be upon him, it is not permissible, because we have seen that the language permits in the phrase Mawla several indications, all of which the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, did not mean with his saying about himself nor about Ali, peace be upon him. It remained one meaning, and hence, it must be that it is what he meant for himself and for Ali, peace be upon him, that is, possession of obedience. If they were to say: Perhaps he had indicated a meaning we do not know, because we do not comprehend the language. It would be said to them: If that was permissible, it would have been permissible for us in all that has been transmitted of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, and all that is in the Qur’an to say: Perhaps he meant with it what is not used in the language. This is problematic, and that is (an attempt) of justification and exiting of understanding. An equal of that would be the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they over themselves» and that when they acknowledged that for him, he said: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» that a man would say to a group: «Are not these goods between me and you for us to sell and make profit, there being two halves between us, and that the same applies for loss?» to which they would say to him: «Yes» and he would say: «Hence, whoever I am his partner, then Zaid is his partner». Hence, he would have made aware that what he meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his partner» is that he only indicated with it the meaning which me made them acknowledge initially with regards to selling the goods and divide the profit and the loss, and that he further made that meaning – that is partnership with Zaid – in his saying «then Zaid is his partner». So is the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they over themselves» to which they acknowledged after, and then the saying of him, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» would only be a notification that he indicated with the saying of the meaning which they had acknowledged to initially, and that he had made Ali, peace be upon him, as such with his saying: «then Ali is his Mawla». It is similar to how that man (supposedly) made the partnership to Zaid with his saying: «then Zaid is his partner». There is no difference in that. If a claimer was to claim that it is linguistically permissible something other than what we clarified, let him bring it, and he will never find it. If he was to object with what they claim regarding the report of Zaid bin Haritha and other reports which they exclusively transmit, that would not be to their advantage, because would have sought to specify the meaning of a report that has been transmitted in consensus by using a report they have exclusively narrated, not us. This is unfairness, because we have many reports which confirm that the meaning of «whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» and which denote that he only declared him as his Successor by that and made obligated obedience to him. This is how we narrate, and confirm, with regards to this report, of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, and of Ali, peace be upon him. Hence, in this manner, there would be our specific report to the contrary of their specific report, whereas the report with its generality remains, about which we and they are to argue by necessities of the language, its usages, division of speech and referring it to that which is correct of it. Our opponents do not have, from the report upon which there is a consensus and the denotation it includes, what we have. Besides what they narrate of the report of Zaid ibn Haritha, there are reports that has come on their tongues which have testified that Zaid was struck in the Battle of Mu’ta along with Ja’far bin Abi Talib, peace be upon him, which was a long while before the Day of Ghadeer Khumm, because the Day of Ghadeer was after the farewell pilgrimage , and the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, did not remain after it except for three months. Thus, if there was in parallel to your report about Zaid what you have narrated in contradiction, it would not be an argument for you to use for the report upon which there is a consensus. If Zaid was present to witness the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, on the Day of Ghadeer, his presence at the farewell pilgrimage would not be to your advantage as well, because all the Arabs know that the Mawla of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, is the Mawla of his Household and sons of his paternal uncles, and that is commonly known in their language and customary practice. Hence, it cannot be that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, said to the people: «Know what you have known and which has been commonly understood among you» because if that was possible, it would have been possible for a sayer to say: «The son of my brother is a father, The Prophet is not the son of his paternal uncle» to which the Prophet would stand up and say: «Hence, he who is the son of my paternal uncle, who is my father, then he is the son of my paternal uncle.» This is invalid, because it is a defectiveness and is not done except by an amusing fool, which is negated from the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family. If a sayer was to say: Indeed, we may argue with every report, which has been transmitted by our sect, that which denotes the meaning of «whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla». It would be said to him: This is theoretically incorrect, because you have to argue with our reports as well that which denotes the meaning of the report, similarly to how you allowed this for yourself, and in this manner, our report that we exclusively transmit, becomes one that resists your exclusively transmitted report. In this manner, (the report of) «whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» remains, as long as we have transmitted in in consensus, an argument for us against you and which necessitates what we have necessitated of it with regards to denotation of affirmed authority. There is a subject to which there is not more to add. Then, if a sayer was to say: Did the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, fluently address the declaration of Successorship to Ali, peace be upon him, if the matter is as you say? And what lead him to say a saying that requires interpretation and which discussion occurs in? We would say to him: If it implies that the report is false or that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, did not indicate with it the meaning that his declaration of Successorship and obligation of obedience to Ali, peace be upon him, due to its containment of what may be interpreted, or because others are more clear and fluent to you than this meaning, it would bind you, if you were a Mu’tazili, to believe that Allah, Exalted and Glorious is He, did not indicate with His saying in His Book: «He is not perceived by the senses» (6:103) that He cannot be seen, because your saying «He cannot be seen» is possible to interpret. And that Allah, Exalted and Glorious is He, did not indicate with His saying in His Book: «And Allah created you and what you make» (37:96) that He created organisms which the servants act with, and not their actions, and that if He intended that, He would certainly had clarified it by saying a statement in which there is no interpretation. And that Allah, Exalted and Glorious is He, did not indicate with His saying: «And the one who kills a believer intentionally, then his reward is Hell» (4:93) that every killer of a believer is to be in Hell, regardless if he had righteous acts or not, because He did not clarify that in a statement in which there cannot be interpretation. Moreover, if you were an Ash’ari, you would be bound to what the Mu’tazila is bound to with regards to what we mentioned, all of it, because it has not been clarified with a phrase that fluently expresses its true meaning according to you. Moreover, if you one is from the people of Hadith [5], it would be said to him: It would bind you that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Indeed, you will see your Lord like how you see the moon at the night of a full moon. You will not be rivalled with seeing Him» because he (supposedly) said a statement that is possible to interpret and whose meaning he was not fluent of, as he does not say: «You will see him with your eyes, not with your hearts». Since this report is possible to interpret and whose meaning has not been clarified fluently, we know that the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, did not indicate with it the sight which you have claimed. This is a severe confusion, because most of the speech in the Qur’an and the reports of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, are in an Arabic tongue and address a fluent people in a circumstance which denote the indication of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, and perhaps it was that he entrusted knowledge of meanings onto intellects, in order for the speech to be contemplated about. Furthermore, I do not know of a meaning that obligates obedience more affirming than the statement of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Do I not have more authority upon the believers than they over themselves?» and then, his saying: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla [6], then Ali is his Mawla.» This is because it is a speech set in order based upon the Muslims’ acknowledgement to the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, that is to obedience, and that he has more authority upon them than they have over themselves. Furthermore, he, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, said: «Hence, whoever I have more authority upon him than he has over himself, then Ali has more authority upon him than he has over himself» because the meaning of «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla» is «Hence, whoever I have more authority upon him than he has over himself» because it is a precise expression of that, as nothing could be linguistically possible except for that. Do you not see that if a sayer was to say to a group: «Are not these goods between us, we sell it and divide the profit and the loss in it?» to which they would say: «Yes» and he would say: «Hence, whoever I am his partner, then Zaid is his partner» then his speech would be correct. The reason for that would be that partnership is the meaning of a sayer to say: «These goods are between us by which we divide the profit and loss» and that due to this, it would be correct for the sayer to say: «Hence, whoever I am his partner, then Zaid is his partner». Similarly, here the statement of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, afterwards would be correct: «Do I not have more authority upon you than you have over themselves? Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» because his Mawla expresses his saying: «Do I not have more authority upon you than you have over yourselves?» Otherwise, whenever it would be that the phrase which comes with the first Faa’ [7] does not express the first meaning, the speech would not never be in order, nor understandable, nor correct, but would rather be hallucination. Whoever would ascribe this to Allah’s Messenger, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, has disbelieved in Allah, the Almighty. Moreover, if the phrase «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla» denotes that «whoever I have more authority upon him than he has over himself» – based upon what we have shown – and that he has made it for Ali, peace be upon him, then it implies that he has made for Ali, peace be upon him, more authority upon the believers than they have over themselves, and that is obedience to Ali, peace be upon him, like how we have clarified initially. What adds more clarity to that is that the sayin of him, peace be upon him: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla» is that if it was not mentioned along with it that «he has more authority upon you than you have over yourselves» then it would be possible that he, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, had not meant with his saying «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla» that «whoever I have more authority upon him than he has over himself». If that was possible, the discussion before this one is what applies, with regards to that it would be a confused, invalid, speech that is neither in order, nor making a meaning understandable, nor what is uttered by a wise nor a rational. Hence, it implies from what has passed of our speech and of what we have clarified, that the meaning of the saying of the Prophet, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family: «Do I not have more authority upon you than you have over yourselves?» that he has possession of their obedience to him, and it implies that with his saying: «Hence, whoever I am his Mawla» he only indicated that «Hence, whoever I possess his obedience, then Ali possesses his obedience» with his saying: «then Ali is his Mawla». This is obvious, and praise be to Allah, for His assistance and granting of success.