The Political Law of Islam (Part 1/2)
In the recent past, a lot has been said about the Islamic political law as enunciated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Since our view about some of its clauses is different from the general one, we present here our interpretation of the law.
Basic Principle
The basic principle upon which Islam has based its political law is that in the affairs of state God and his Prophet (sws) is the final authority. The head of an Islamic State or the members of its parliament have no right whatsoever to have a ruling in matters decreed by the Book of God or the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws). Their commandments can only be obeyed after obeying God and his Prophet (sws), and if they do not overrule or exceed the limits adjudicated by these authorities. Therefore, in an Islamic State no law can be enacted contrary to the Qur’ān and Sunnah or one which does not take into consideration the guidance provided by them. The believers indeed have a right to disagree with those in authority, but they can have no disagreement with God and His Prophet (sws). In fact, if such a situation arises even with those in authority, the decision must be made in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. The Qur’ān says:
“Obey God and the Prophet and those of you who are in authority, and if you disagree among yourselves in any matter, refer it to God and the Prophet, if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and more seemly as regards the consequences.” (4:59) If at any time the people charged with authority deny this principle then according to the Qur’ān this is outright kufr[1], which can only be perpetrated by a zālim[2] or a fāsiqh[3]. The Qur’ān says:
“And those who do not decide according to the law revealed by God are Kāfirs.” (5:44)
In this situation, the believers have a right to disobey their rulers and if possible, to strive for their removal from the position of authority they hold[4]. Ubādah-Ibn-Sāmit has reported the following tradition of the Prophet (sws):
“The Prophet of God said: You can only refuse their submission if you witness outright kufr in any matter from them, in which you have a clear evidence from God.” (Muslim : Kitāb-ul-Amāra)
It is, therefore, clear that this is a basic principle and if a state does not adhere to it, it cannot be called an Islamic State in any sense of the word. It follows from this that it is necessary for the believers to establish an institution in their state to which they can turn to ascertain the injunctions of God and His Prophet (sws) in all the collective affairs of life and to resolve any disagreement which may arise in this regard.
The Objectives of a State
A state founded on the above principle will, according to this law, have the objectives of establishing the system of prayers and zakat and to patronize and further whatever God and His Prophet (sws) regard as virtuous and to forbid whatever they regard as evil. The Qur’ān says:
“[These believers are those who], if We grant them authority in this land, will establish regular prayers and pay zakat and enjoin what is virtuous and forbid what is evil.” (22:41)
The fact that, like any other state, an Islamic State has the responsibility to strive for the welfare and prosperity of its people, to maintain peace and defend its frontiers is understood. What is being actually stressed is that the above verse spells out what may be regarded as the primary and distinctive objectives for which an Islamic State is created. It should in no way neglect these foremost obligations and should, in fact, direct all its efforts to achieve them. This will enable all the believers to hold steadfast to Islamic teachings and be in a position to duly bear witness to the religion of truth upon other nations of the world, which according to the Qur’ān is the main objective behind the creation of the Muslim Ummah:
“You are the best Ummah that has been raised up for mankind [to bear witness to the religion of truth upon them]. You enjoin what is virtuous and forbid what is evil and really believe in God.” (3:110)
It is for this objective for which the believers have been directed to establish their collective system in a manner in which all rights and duties can be fulfilled in an appropriate way, and all judgements between people should be passed with justice. According to the Qur’ān:
“God commands you to hand back trusts to their rightful owners and to always pass judgement upon men with fairness. Verily this is from God an excellent admonition. For God is He who hears and sees all things.” (4:58)
The System of Government
The system of government of an Islamic State is based upon the Qur’ānic verse:
“Their affairs of state are run by their mutual consultation.” (42:38)
The extensive meaning this short verse encompasses and the guidance obtained from it about the political set up envisaged by Islam need a detailed discussion which follows.
Diversity in the Word Amr
The word ÿamr has many meanings in Arabic. Anyone who has a linguistic appreciation knows that for all such words the implied meaning is determined from the context in which they are used. Before we ascertain its implied meaning in the above verse, we shall examine its various connotations in Arabic.
In Yazīd Ibn Al-Jaham Al-Halāli’s following couplet it means `to urge’ or `to advise’:
Laqad ‘amarat bilbukhli ‘ummu mohammadī
Fa qultu laha: huththī `alal bukhli ‘ahmadā
(“Ummi-Mohammad urged me to be stingy, so I said to her: if you must urge someone to be stingy then let it be your son Ahmad.”)
Amar-Ibn-Dhubai`ah-Al-Raqqāshī uses it in exactly the same way we use `matters’ for our general affairs of life:
‘alā liyaqul mā shā’a ‘innamā
Yulāmul fata fīmastatā`a minal ‘amrī
(“Let anyone say what he likes, for a young man can only be reproached in matters which are under his control.”)
In Abu-Sakhar-Al-Huzalī’s following couplet, it denotes `commandments and authority’:
‘amā wallazī ‘abkā wa adh haka wallazī
‘amāta wa ‘ahyā wallazi amruhul ‘amrū
(“Listen! By Him Who made us weep and laugh, Who gave death and life and Whose commandments are the real commandments.”)
Safiyya-Binti-Abdul-Muttalib uses it in a way in which together with `commandments and authority’ it connotes `affairs of state’:
‘alā man mublighun `anna Qurayshan
Fafīmal ‘amru fīnā wal īmārū
(“Hark ! who will deliver our message to the Quraysh that as they do not accept our social position, so they should tell us that why are the affairs of state in our hands and why are we considered worthy of consultation?”)
In the Qur’ān also, it has been used in all these meanings and in all instances the meaning it actually implies is determined by the context. It is quite evident that in this verse it has been used in the meaning of `collective affairs’. The depth in its meaning of `commandment’ has, in fact, incorporated this meaning in it. When the word commandment becomes related to people then it prescribes certain limits for itself and establishes certain rules and regulations. In such cases, it implies both the decrees which pertain to political authority and the collective affairs of a society. A little deliberation shows that the English word `system’ conveys the same meaning.
Since the Qur’ān has not specified it by any adjective, so all sub-systems which are part of the political system must be considered included in its connotation. In fact, all affairs of state like the municipal affairs, national and provincial affairs, political and social injunctions, rules of legislation, delegation and revocation of powers, dismissal and appointment of officials, interpretation of Islam for the collective affairs of life---all will come under the principle laid down in this verse. In other words, no area or department under an Islamic Government can be beyond the jurisdiction of this principle.
The Principle of Consultation
The word shūrā is a nomen verbum (masdar) of the category fu`alā and means `to consult’. Due to the fact that it occurs as an inchoative (khabr) in the given verse and is also qualified by the word bainahum, the meaning of the verse is not the same as of shāwirhum fil amr. Fa izā `azamta fa tawakkal`alalāh, which is often quoted as its parallel. To convey the same meaning as this verse, the words should, perhaps, have been something like this: wa fil amri hum yushāwarūn ie, `And in the affairs [of state] they are consulted’. In this case, it would have been necessary that in the whole society the rulers and the ruled be distinct. The ruler in such a case would be divinely appointed or nominated by an innocent Imām or be someone who had seized power by force. Whatever the way he reached the position of head of state, he would have only been obligated to consult people in matters of national interest before forming his own opinion. Nonetheless, he would not be bound to accept a consensus or a majority opinion. Acceptance or rejection of an opinion would rest on his own discretion. He would have all the right to accept a minority opinion and reject a majority one.
However, the style and pattern of the verse amruhum shūrā bainahum demands that even the head of an Islamic State be appointed through consultation; the system itself be based on consultation; everyone should have an equal right in consultation; whatever done through consultation should only be undone through consultation; everyone part of the system should have a say in its affairs, and without a consensus, a majority opinion should decide any disagreement which many arise.
The difference in the meanings of the two verses can be appreciated if the following example is kept in mind. If it is said: `the ownership of this house shall be decided after consulting these ten brothers’ then it means that only the ten brothers have the authority to make the decision and the opinion of anyone of them can not prevail over the others. If all of them do not agree in the matter, a majority opinion would be decisive. But, if the above sentence is changed a little to `In deciding the ownership of this house, these ten brothers shall be consulted’ then it only means that someone else has the final say. It will be his opinion which will finally be executed. The only thing he must do is to consult the ten brothers before forming his own opinion. Obviously, he cannot be forced to accept a consensus or a majority opinion of the brothers.
Since, in our consideration the collective affairs of the Muslim are based on the Qur’ānic injunction: amruhum shūrā bainahum, the election of their ruler as well as their representatives must take place through consultation. Also, after assuming a position of authority they will have no right to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the Muslims in all the collective affairs. However, the Prophet (sws) was an exception to this rule. He was divinely appointed and there was no possibility of human error in his judgements which he made directly under the guidance of the Almighty. Therefore, where he has been directed to consult others in Sūrah Aali ‘Imrān, it has been clearly stated that whatever opinion he forms after consultation, he should strictly adhere to it and rely totally on the Almighty:
“Keep consulting in the affairs of state; then when you take a decision, put thy trust in Allah.” (3:159)
The above directive of the Qur’ān is in accordance with human nature and in harmony with all norms of common sense. No Muslim can be free of faults and shortcomings. He can be the most distinguished as far as piety and knowledge are concerned; he can be the most suitable for the position of authority he holds and can even consider himself so. With these abilities also, he cannot attain the position of Khilāfat without the general opinion of the Muslims. Also, his assumption of this position after being elected through a majority mandate does not necessitate at all that he cannot err or has the prerogative to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the authorized people. The Prophet (sws) had this prerogative because he, being divinely guided, could not err. Even so, not one example can be cited from history in which he had ignored a majority opinion in favour of his own.
A Muslim ruler is, indeed, only one individual and everyone will acknowledge that the opinion of a group of people has more chances of being correct than that of a single person. A God-fearing Muslim ruler should regard his own opinion in the way Imām Shafi used to: `We consider our opinion as correct but concede the possibility of an error, and the consider the opinion of others as incorrect but concede the possibility of correctness in it’.
Moreover, if the people consulted know that even their consensus and majority opinion have all the chances of being rejected, they would not agree to offer their opinion in the first place. Even if forced to do so, they would never take serious interest in it. While delineating on this psychological aspect, Qadhi Abu Bakr Jassās writes in his “Ahkām-ul-Qur’ān”:
“It is not proper to consider that this directive of consultation is merely to please and honour the Companions of the Prophet nor is proper to think that it has been given so that the Ummah should follow the Prophet in this regard in such matters. On the other hand if the Companions knew that their opinion would neither be followed nor held in any regard after they had used all their intellectual abilities to form it, this would not have pleased or honoured them; instead they would have been totally discouraged, considering that their opinions are neither [good enough] to be acceptable nor [fit enough] to be followed. Therefore, such an interpretation of this directive of consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted. Furthermore, how can this aspect of the interpretation that this directive was merely given to teach the Prophet’s way to the Ummah be regarded as correct when the person who says this himself knows that the Ummah is aware of the fact that giving such an opinion was neither of any use nor was it followed in a particular matter.” (Vol 2, Pg 41)
Conditions of Consultation
The addition of bainahum has incorporated a condition in the sentence: only those people will have the right to give their opinions who are the antecedents of the pronoun hum (they) in bainahum. The Qur’ān has not just said `Their affairs of state are based on consultation’. It has added the condition that the affairs of state shall be based on their mutual consultation. Therefore, in an Islamic State, it is quite evident that only the believers will have the right to give an opinion in state affairs. According to the Qur’ān, a person shall only be considered as a believer if he fulfils the following conditions:
“Hence, if they repent [from all un-Islamic beliefs] and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, they are your brethren in religion.” (9:11)
In the above verse, three conditions have been clearly stated:
1) They should refrain from adopting a rebellious attitude against the Islamic Order, stop indulging in polytheism, profess faith in the tenets of Islam and accept the supremacy of the Islamic law.
2) They should offer prayers according to the way prescribed by the Prophet (sws).
3) They should pay Zakat to the public treasury (bait-ul-māl).
According to the Qur’ān, whoever fulfils these three conditions shall be granted complete citizenship in an Islamic State. He can be included among the consulters and the consulted. As far as his rights and duties in a state are concerned, there will be no difference between him and a person who had accepted faith in the early stages. The Qur’ān has used the word fa ikhwānukum fid dīn (they are your brothers in religion) to convey this meaning. From the word Ad-dīn, the Islamic collective system is implied and by the words fa ikhwānukum, those who have accepted faith in the crucial early stages have been addressed and told that those who fulfil these conditions are equal to them and will have the same collective rights.
The Prophet (sws) has explained thus the Qur’ānic directives in this regard, as reported by Abdullah Ibni ‘Umar:
“I have been ordained to wage war with these people until they testify to the oneness of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, establish regular prayers and pay zakat. If they accept these conditions their lives and wealth shall be given protection except if they are deprived from this protection on the grounds of some offense they may commit. As far as their inner account is concerned, it rests with Allah.” (Muslim: Kitāb-ul-Imān).
A similar statement is attributed to the Caliph Abu Bakr, when he was launching an attack against those who were desisting to pay zakat:
“After the death of the Prophet of Allah, Abu Bakr became Khalīfa and a group among the Arabs rejected faith [and he decided to fight with them]. Hadhrat ‘Umar objected: How can you fight with these people when the Prophet of Allah had said: `I have been ordained to wage war[5] with these people until they testify to the oneness of God and my prophethood, so whoever will declare this he shall safeguard his life and wealth from me except for some right of the Almighty. As far as his inner accountability is concerned it rests with God.’, Abu Bakr replied: By God! I shall definitely wage war with those who differentiate between prayers and zakat, because zakat is God’s right in wealth. By God! even if they refuse me a young goat which they used to give to the Prophet, I shall fight with them on their refusal.” (Bukhārī , Kitāb-uz-Zakāt)
The following words are also attributed to Hadhrat Abu Bakr:
“The Prophet waged war on three conditions: on testification to Lā ilāha illalāh, on the establishment of regular prayers and on the payment of zakat and the Almighty has said: `Therefore, if they repent establish regular prayers and pay zakat, spare their lives’. By God I shall neither ask for more nor less.” (“Ahkām-ul-Qur’ān”, Jassās, Vol 3, Pg 82).
It is clear from these directives that all those people will have a right to offer their opinion in the affairs of state who fulfil the above three conditions. A state’s affairs shall be instituted and run in accordance with their consultation. The Almighty has granted them this right and no head of state or political institution can deprive them of it.
Majlis-i-Shūrā
According to the Qur’ānic injunction amruhum shūrā bainahum, the manner in which the Muslim public shall participate in the state’s affairs is based on the following two principles, as prescribed by the Prophet (sws):
(1) Muslims shall be consulted in the affairs of state through their leaders in whom they profess confidence. To quote the “Sahīh” of Bukhārī :
“When the Muslims at the Prophet’s behest consented to free the prisoners of Hawāzin, the Prophet said: I could not know which of you has shown his consent and which of you has not. Therefore, go back, and send your leaders that they may inform us.” (Kitāb-ul-Ahkām)
During the time of the Prophet (sws), the tribal chiefs held this position of trust. The people of the tribes of Aus, Khazraj and Quraysh professed confidence in every sense of the word in their respective leaders. Indeed, these leaders were not elected to this position nor was an election needed in the social conditions which existed at that time. It was, in fact, because of their social status, intellect and experience that their people turned to them in all the political and collective affairs. Before the advent of Islam, it was their tribes’ complete faith in them which conferred this position on them and this state continued even after they accepted Islam. However, before accepting Islam, someone could say that they had seized power by force and that he was not in a position to show his mistrust in them, but after accepting faith everyone from among the Muslim public could express infront of the Prophet (sws) his lack of confidence in them. If they did so, no one from among the leaders could remain on their positions.
During the Khilāfat-i-Rāshidah also the position of trust commanded by the leaders continued.
While narrating the proceedings of a shūrā during the time of Hadhrat ‘Umar’s rule, Qadhi Abu Yusaf says:
“The people said: you should now seek formal consultation. At this he consulted the early Muhājirīns and three existed a difference in their opinions. Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf maintained that the land should be rightfully distributed among them, while Hadhrat Usman, Ali, Talha and Hadhrat Ibni ‘Umar, were in agreement with Hadhrat ‘Umar’s view. Then he called ten people from the Ansār: five from the Aus and five from the Khazraj.” (“Kitāb-ul-Kharāj”, Fasal fil Fai wal Kharāj)
(2) Among the various groups present in an Islamic State, only that group shall assume its political authority which enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Muslims. This principle has been derived from the Prophet’s decision in which he expressed how the transfer of political power should take place after him. Mua`wiyyah reports in Bukhārī :
“I heard the Prophet saying: Our political authority shall remain with the Quraysh. In this matter, whoever opposes them as long as they follow Islam, Allah shall cast him face down in Hell .” (Kitāb-ul-Ahkām)
To quote “Tabrāni”:
“In this matter bring forward the Quraysh and do not try to supersede them.” (`An Asānīdi Mukhtalifah)
The Prophet (sws) stated thus the reason for the decision he had declared:
“People in this matter follow the Quraysh. The believers of Arabia are the followers of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the followers of their disbelievers.” (Muslim, Kitāb-ul-Imārah)
Thus, the Prophet (sws) made it very clear that since the majority of the Arabian Muslims profess confidence in the Quraysh, therefore, in the light of the Qur’ānic Directive: amruhum shūrā bainahum, they are solely entitled to take charge as the rulers of Arabia, and that the Quraysh shall be passed on the political authority not because of any racial superiority but only by virtue of this position.
Those who have studied the history of the Arabs know that before the advent of the Prophet (sws), the Quraysh were at the helm of the state’s affairs and their leaders were considered as the leaders of the Arabs. After the battles of Badr and Uhud, though several of their leaders had been killed, yet in the capacity of a party they enjoyed the confidence of all the Arabs. All their prominent people who had accepted faith were present in Medina and many of them had distinguished themselves in the service of Islam. It were these people who were there called the Muhājirīn and after the general acceptance of faith by the Arabs had assumed the place of Utbah Ibn Rabī`ah, Shaibah Ibn Rabī`ah, Abul Bukhtarī Ibn Hishām, Naufal Ibn Khuwailid, Hārith Ibn Amir Ibn Naufal, Tu`aimah Ibn Adī Ibn Naufal, Nazar Ibn Al-Hārith, Zam`ah Ibn Al-Aswad, Abu Jahal Ibn Hishām, Umayyah Ibn Khalf, Munabbih Ibn Hajjjāj, Suhail Ibn Amr and Amr Ibn Abdiwud. Now Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf, Sa`ad Ibn Abi Waqqās, Abu Ubaidah Ibn Al-Jarrah, Zubair Ibn Al-Awām, Talha Ibn Ubaidullah, Ali, Uthman, ‘Umar and Abu Bakr held the same position of general trust and confidence as the leaders of the Quraysh did before the advent of Islam.
Due to these reasons, the fact, that the Quraysh enjoyed the confidence of the general Muslims of Arabia and no other group which could challenge their position existed in Arabia, was an undisputable reality, which did not require the confirmation of a general election.
There is no doubt that as far as Medina was concerned, the Ansār under Sa`ad Ibn Abādh and Sād Ibn Muāz the respective leaders of Aus and Khazraj, had more influence among the local population. They were no less than the Muhājirīn as regards the services they had done for the cause of Islam. They had offered their unconditional support and help to the Muhājirīn when the latter had migrated to Medina. Together with them, they had fought gallantly in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Ahzāb and Hunain. The relationship of brotherhood and fraternity they had established with them was an exceptional one. Particularly, the way they had offered them monetary assistance---just to please the Almighty of course---bears no parallel in history. If the Islamic State had been confined only to Medina, it can be said with certainty that after the Prophet (sws), they would have assumed political authority. But after the conquest of Mecca, when a large number of Arabs of other territories accepted Islam, the political scene change drastically. The extent of confidence commanded by the Muhahirīn of Quraysh out-proportioned that of the Ansār.
However, there was still a chance that under the perfectly natural emotions of tribal affiliation and the spirit of outdoing each other in serving Islam, the Ansār might have come out and challenged the Quraysh. Particularly, the fact that they commanded more influence locally in Medina might have caused them to put an undue trust in their strength. If such a situation, God forbid, arose the Munāfiqīn (hypocrites) would have certainly tried to benefit from it, and keeping in view the social conditions which prevailed at that time only a war could have settled their dissension.
Therefore, the Prophet (sws) sensing that this untoward situation might arise, decided once and for all the fate of this matter in his own life in the presence of Sād Ibn Ubādah, the leader of the Ansār. He is said to have said: `After me the leadership (imāmat) shall be transferred to the Quraysh.’
In the Saqīfah of Bani Sā`ida, when the leaders of the Ansār were delivering stirring speeches to prove their entitlement to the leadership of the Arabs, Hadhrat Abu Bakr reminded them of the Prophet’s above mentioned decision in the following words:
“O Sād! You know very well that the Prophet (sws) had said in your presence that the Quraysh shall be given the khilāfat because the noble among the Arabs follow their nobles and the their unrighteous follow their unrighteous. Sād replied: What you say is correct, we are your advisers and you are our rulers.” (“Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal”)
After this verification by Sād Ibn Ubādah, it became clear to those present that they had strayed from the right course in the heat of the discussion and that the right course was only to elect their ruler from the group which had the majority in the public; that whoever would be elected would be the Khalīfah of the Muslims and it would be obligatory to obey him; that this course had been outlined by the Prophet (sws) himself and they should not in any case adopt a different one.
The Khilāfat-i-Rāshidah was also founded on the basis of this decision declared by the Prophet (sws). When the leaders of the Ansār submitted to it, Hadhrat ‘Umar proclaimed the Khilāfat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr being sure of the fact that the leaders of the Quraysh shall not differ with him and would, in fact, endorse his step, considering the delicacy of the situation which had arisen in the Saqīfah. Later, he himself stated this reason for his step and warned the people that no one should dare present it as a violation of the Qur’ānic principle: amrahum shūrā bainahum:
“No one among you should have the misconception that the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr took place suddenly. No doubt, the oath was pledged in the this way, but the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil consequences [which may have arisen] and remember! there is none among you like Abu Bakr, whose greatness cannot be surpassed. Now if a person pledges an oath of allegiance to someone, without the opinion of the believers, no one should pledge allegiance to him as well as to whom he [himself] pledged allegiance because by this both of them shall present themselves for execution.” (Bukhārī , Kitāb-ul-Hudūd)
At the time of the death of Abu Bakr also, the general confidence enjoyed by the Muhājirīn of the Quraysh persisted. Since no other tribe of the Arabs including the Ansār had challenged this position, they continued to hold their position of authority, and there was no need to turn to the general public in this regard. Therefore, the leaders of the MuHajjirīn of the Quraysh nominated Hadhrat ‘Umar as the new Amīr-ul-Mominīn, and both the Ansār and the Muhājirīn---the two big tribes of the Muslims---accepted the appointment. Consequently, without any difference of opinion, Hadhrat ‘Umar, in direct accordance with the Islamic constitution, assumed the position of Khilāfat. Ibni Sād reports:
“When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Hadhrat Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf and said: `Tell me about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’. Abdur Rehman replied: `You are asking me about something of which you know better’. Abu Bakr said: `Although [this is correct yet I want your opinion]’. Abdur Rehman answered: `By God! he is even better than the opinion you hold about him’. Then he [Abu Bakr] called Uthman Ibn Affān and asked him: `Tell me about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’. Hadhrat Uthman replied: `You know him better than us’. Abu Bakr said: `Still! O Abu Abdullah! [I want your opinion]’. [At this] Hadhrat Uthman answered: `Indeed, in my opinion his inner self is better than his outer and no one among us can parallel him’.” (At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā, Vol 3, Pg 199)
Ibni Sa’ad mentions that Abu Bakr besides these two consulted all the big leaders of the Ansār and the Muhājirīn:
“And he, besides these two, consulted Abul Awar Saeed Ibn Zaid and Asīd Ibn Al-Hudhair as well as other big leaders of the Ansār and the Muhājirīn, so Asīd said: `Indeed after you O Abu Bakr! I consider him the best. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Khilāfat’.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 199)