(15)

Translator’s Preface

In 1994, our friend and colleague Hector Manzolillo, a prolific professional translator, presented us with two volumes of the academic journal Epiemelia which contained the article “El Islam Šhi’ita: Zortodoxia o heterodoxia?” [Shi‘ite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?]. He asked us to read the article and wondered whether we could translate it from Spanish into English. At the time we had recently completed our Honours B.A. in French and Spanish at the University of Toronto, and were starting graduate school. While we were impressed with the arguments made by the author Luis Alberto Vittor, and we appreciated the scholarly contribution of his work, we declined the request to translate the article due to lack of time. We ensured Hector Manzolillo and Luis Alberto Vittor that I would translate the book at some time in the future.

It was only in the summer of 2004 that we were able to devote my time to the translation of the article in question. We had completed our M.A. and Ph.D. in Spanish American Literature in 2000, and found a position as an Assistant Professor of Modern Languages at Park University in Kansas City in 2001. It took us several years to get settled in, both academically and financially, before we could devote our time to translating the article. It was thus, in the summer of 2004, that we informed Luis Alberto Vittor, now a close friend and colleague, a spiritual advisor and academic mentor, that we were ready to get to work.

Due to the specialized nature of the work, we felt it necessary to add extensive notes to make it more accessible to non-experts. While a scholar of Islam, a Muslim philosopher or an intellectual might comprehend the allusions being made by the author, most of them would escape the average reader as many of his sentences could be a paragraph, many of his paragraphs could be a chapter,

 

(16)

and many of his chapters could be a book. What was supposed to be a small summer project turned into a major two year endeavor as we found ourself continuously expounding upon his arguments to the point that the article gradually turned into a full-fledged book.

The final product, a critically annotated translation of Luis Alberto Vittor’s Shi‘ite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, was thus finally completed. Reviewed by several Islamic scholars, including Dr. Liyakat ‘Ali Takim, Shaykh Feisal Morhell, Professor Hasan ‘Abd al-‘Ali Bize and Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, the book was embraced by Mr. Muhammad Taqi Ansariyan. As most academics who read the book have acknowledged, the value of the work resides in the fact that it is the first scholarly study to deal with Sunni-Shi‘i polemics from an esoteric and metaphysical perspective while providing a general criticism of Western Orientalism.

Luis Alberto Vittor’s criticism of Western Orientalism is amply justified and is certainly not the first. As is well known, Edward Sa‘id condemned Orientalism categorically, claiming that it served political ends. It is indeed correct that Orientalism was used to justify European imperialism in colonial times. It is equally correct that Orientalism is used to support American and Zionist interests in the Muslim world in contemporary times. While there is truth in Sa‘id’s statement, it remains an over-generalization. The mistakes made by some Orientalists are not necessarily malicious. Many merely have a limited view because they never release their own history when looking at another’s. As Barbara Castleton explains,

It should be remembered that people can only look at something from a perspective they have experienced. While de Toqueville managed a brilliant analysis of America after being here a mere six months, this is not the norm. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that he wrote as an observer. An Orientalist, Arabist or Islamicist, can never bring real veracity and authenticity to a subject that they are merely observing.

 

(17)

For some scholars, Islam is like an ocean which they explore from the shoreline. They can dip their toes in it, they can wade in it, and kick their legs up forcefully, but they never really learn to let go and swim in the sea. They never let go of the edge to feel the swirl of their topic ebbing and flowing all around them. Despite their shortcomings, many of these Orientalists have made contributions to the field of Islamic Studies. Others, however, are arrogant, insolent and openly hostile to the Muslim faith. These scholars have never approached the ocean of Islam. Rather than revel in its riches and drink from its pristine purity, they stand firmly on its shoreline, pouring pollutants into its waters, vainly seeking to cloud its clarity.

While the English version of Luis Alberto’s book is sure to be embraced by Shi‘ite scholars and open-minded individuals, it might be criticized or conveniently ignored by some Western Orientalists who will allege a lack of objectivity on the part of the author. Ironically, they may accuse him of their own single greatest shortcoming: subjectivity. They might claim to see a mote in his eye while being blind to the beam that veils their own vision (Matthew 7:5). They might complain that the author is writing from a Shi‘ite perspective and has not remained impartial, a rule which apparently only to Muslim scholars since most Christian scholars rarely detach themselves from their own religious and ideological points of view. In the worst of cases, Christian scholars do not even pretend to remove themselves from their own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and other professional vices.

After calling into question his objectivity, this sector of Orientalists might move on to their second line of attack: Vittor’s approach and methodology. Despite the author’s expressed aim to present the Shi‘ite position--in all of its esoteric and metaphysical dimensions--he might be criticized for writing from a religious perspective. To be succinct, this would be a polite way of saying he is subjective, biased, and partial. They might argue that the book is directed to English-speaking Muslims, rather than recognizing it as a scholarly work aimed at an academic audience.

 

(18)

If Luis Alberto Vittor had said that Shi‘ite Islam was a Persian creation, that the Qur’an was the work of Muhammad which was copied from Jews and Christians, and that the corpora of prophetic traditions were mere legends, he would be embraced like a brother, cited incessantly, invited to conferences, given generous grants. Eventually he might even be appointed to a prestigious Chair of Islamic Studies or counsel the American President regarding policies in the Muslim world. While some Orientalists are eager to attack scholars who study Islam objectively, they rarely dare to criticize the pro-Christian perspectives of some of their most distinguished colleagues.

Rather than dealing with concrete facts and responding with sound, solidly-based arguments, some Orientalists might dismiss the author’s scholarship as subjective. These are the same scholars, however, who have shown little concern for the subjectivity of their own colleagues. It almost seems as if there was some sort of consensus that Islam must only be studied by non-Muslims. If this is the case, it is certainly a strange double-standard as most scholars of Judaism are Jewish, and most scholars of Christianity are Christians, yet one rarely hears any of them being criticized for being biased.

It does not require much effort to find Orientalists responsible for reductionist readings of the Islamic faith. Take, for example, the attitude of the Islamologist Félix María Pareja who argued that “Islam was the religion of the sword.” If a Muslim academic said that Christianity was a religion of Crusades, Inquisitions, and genocide, Western scholars would never let their roar of outrage recede. God forbid if a Muslim academic dared to say that Judaism was the religion of Zionism, Jewish imperialism, Palestinian concentration camps, Deyr Yasin, Sabra and Shatila, as well as the mass expulsion of Muslims. The words of Father Pareja, however, are not denounced by Western religious scholars. On the contrary, they are cited, and passed from textbook to textbook without the author’s objectivity being called into question. As a priest, he wrote from a Catholic perspective. Can he then be entirely objective?

 

(19)

Rather than questioning the scholarship produced by Muslim scholars, Western Orientalists might consider criticizing the likes of Asín Palacios. Many Spanish Orientalists and Arabists now openly admit that he was slanted. Paradoxically, they continue to use his work as standard reference material despite his claims that Sufism was merely a Christianized form of Islam. If the thesis is wrong, the entire argument leading up to it is equally erroneous and needs to be discarded. The inconsistencies of Western philosophers are so widespread that Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont have spoken of “intellectual imposters” who rely on verbosity to cover their argumentative deficiencies. Unfortunately, there are some Western Orientalists who remain “slaves of old ideas,” unable to appreciate the value of works written with academic freedom.

Despite their allegations of subjectivity with regards to the author, Western Orientalists would be hard-pressed to present a concrete criticism of the present work as its content is objective and scientific, both methodologically and epistemologically. While the work may have its shortcomings--for example, focusing only on certain aspects of the topic due to limitations of time and space--this certainly does not invalidate the text as a whole. That would be like discarding an Armani suit because the sewing-lady overlooked a tiny detail in the lining. Finally, what some Orientalists will find the most annoying about the current work of Luis Alberto Vittor is that it is a scientific study completed within the framework of the Islamic faith, without succumbing to bias or attempts to proselytize.

While their criticism may seem harsh to some, scholars like Edward Sa‘id, Ahmad Ghorab, and Luis Alberto Vittor, are neither “assassins of Orientalists” nor propagandists for the Islamist cause. They are not out to destroy Western Orientalism nor do they have any missionary agenda. On the contrary, their comprehensive criticism addresses important methodological mistakes. It is a call for true scholarship, at the service of science, rather than political and economic ambitions. For Edward Sa‘id, Ahmad Ghorab, and Luis Alberto Vittor, Orientalism should be a

 

(20)

means of rapprochement, a means of knowing others, not turning them into alter-egos, not demonizing them, not exoticizing them, not eroticizing them, and certainly not undermining them.

According to Sa‘id, Ghorab, and Vittor, certain subjects are sacred, and while they can be studied scientifically and critically, this must always be done with an attitude of respect and tolerance. Whether it is Hinduism, Taoism or Buddhism, whether it is Judaism, Christianity or Islam, all religious traditions merit to be studied without being slighted, tarnished, or disrespected. This applies equally to any discussions of Shi‘ite Islam which, due to Orientalist opinion, has been stigmatized as sectarian. Showing a blatant disregard for etymology, many Orientalists have equated Shi‘ism with the schism, claiming that the very word shi‘ah signifies “sect” when it merely means “followers.” This misrepresentation of the Arabic language and Islamic reality was opposed by J. Spencer Trimingham almost forty years ago when he explained that:

In Western thought, a ‘sect’ is regarded as a group which has broken away from the parent religious community because of differing views. On such criteria Shi‘ism is not a sect in its origins, since it springs directly from the main stream of Islamic development, which branched into two streams, following different interpretations, hardening into doctrines, about the origins and ordering of Islamic society. (79)

Clearly, Islam is not composed of a single Sunni stream, from which heretical sects flow out as rivulets, drying out in the sands of infidelity and heresy rather than reaching the sea of eternity. If anything, Islam is an eternal tree. Its roots are the pillars of Islam; its trunk is the shari‘ah; its branches are its interpretations; and the fleeting leaves are its followers, coming and going with each revisited season. The dialogue between Shi‘ism and Sunnism, however, has been far less poetic, ecumenical and fraternal.

As experts in the field are aware, the debate between Sunnism and Shi‘ism has provided a large body of polemical literature. The

 

(21)

Shi‘ite scholarship on the subject tends to be characterized by a scholarly approach. The Sunni and most particularly Salafi work, however, tends to be characterized by an attitude which is both divisive and destructive. In the best of cases, the authors are misinformed and misrepresent the teachings of Twelve Imam Shi‘ite Islam. In the worst of cases, they lance allegations against Shi’ites based on dubious documents, fabrications and fantasy, in order to accuse them of heresy. The classical Sunni heresiographers and polemicists include Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari (d. 935-6), Abu al-Mudaffar al-Isfara’ini (d. 1078-9), Abu al-Qasim ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ahmad al-Kirmani (d. before 1131), Shahrastani (d. 1135) and Mu‘i al-Din Mizra Makhdum (d. 1587). More modern authors include Ahmad b. Zayni Dahlan (d. 1886), a Shafi‘i mufti from Makkah, and Musa Jar Allah (d. 1949). In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Salafis, rather than Sunnis, have been at the forefront in producing polemical anti-Shi‘ite tracts. The most notorious of these authors include Ahmad al-Afghani, Sayyid Abu al-Hasan Nadvi, Abu Aminah Bilal Philips, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahman Dimashqui, Shaykh Yahya Silmi al-Saylani, and Shaykh Faisal. Some of these people, like Bilal Philips, a Canadian convert of Jamaican origin, have been supported by the Saudi establishment and represent the pro-Saudi Salafis. Others, like Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Faisal, a Jamaican convert formerly known as Trevor William Forrest, represent the anti-Saudi Salafis. Shaykh Faisal is presently in prison in the U.K, convicted to a nine year term in 2003 for incitement to murder. In his defense, he explained that the teachings he was given were “in accordance with the same at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia” and that “all my teachings are from the Koran and Saudi Arabia” (Gillan).

To accuse Shi‘ite Muslims of “heresy,” as many Salafis do, is to play judge and executioner. It is well-known among Muslims that Islamic Law prescribes the death penalty for heretics and apostates. Of course, not all authors are so subtle as to call Shi‘ites heretics and then drop the issue. There are those like Ahmed Shah Mass‘oud from the Afghan Mujahidin and Northern

 

(22)

Alliance, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, founder of the Hezb-i Islami, Mulla ‘Omar from the Taliban, and Osama ben Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the recently deceased Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi from al-Qa‘idah, who have openly advocated murder, declaring Shi‘ites to be worse than infidels, and claiming their blood was halal. Books like Talbees Iblees, [The Devil’s Deception of the Shi‘ites], extremist websites, and anti-Shi‘ite pamphlets are often all it takes to incite ignorant fanatics to vigilante violence. The massacres of Shi‘ite Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are partly the result of anti-Shi‘ah propaganda. The individuals responsible for encouraging and committing these atrocities are true terrorists with innocent blood on their hands.

In many Western nations, like Canada, there are laws against hate literature. It is time for all supporters of human rights to demand their application, put a halt to anti-Shi‘i hate propaganda, prohibit its dissemination, press for the prosecution of those who produce it, distribute it and profit from it. If Canada, the United States and other nations can ban David Irving, the Holocaust revisionist, from entering their countries, then surely they can ban extremist Salafis.

In the past fifty years, the ruling family and government of Saudi Arabia has indoctrinated millions of Muslims into the Wahhabi ideology through its Islamic universities at home and affiliated institutions abroad; through its publishing houses; and through its network of Islamic organizations, mosques and associations. The vast majority of mosques in North America are controlled by ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, which is the “official organ” of Saudi Salafism in the Western World. Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Ronald Reagan, reveals that:

[T]he Islamic Society of North America is a front for the promotion of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi political, doctrinal and theological infrastructure in the United States and

 

(23)

Canada. Established by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, ISNA has for years sought to marginalize leaders of the Muslim faith who do not support the Wahhabists’ strain of Islamofascism, and, through sponsorship of propaganda and mosques, is pursuing a strategic goal of eventually dominating Islam in America. ISNA provides indoctrination materials to about 1,100 of an estimated 2,500 mosques in the North American continent. Through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)--a Saudi government-based organization created to fund Islamist enterprises in North America--it reportedly holds the mortgages of between 50-79 percent of those mosques. Through this device, ISNA exerts ideological as well as theological influence over what is preached and taught in these institutions and schools.

Saudi oil money has spread Salafism to such an extent that, for a great part, Sunnism has morphed into Salafism. The “Muslim fundamentalist” menace has now hit home and Saudi Arabia is facing the return of their prodigal sons. Surely, Saudi dollars would best be spent delivering humanitarian aid to Muslim countries, supporting economic development and encouraging Islamic unity, rather than encouraging Islamic extremism.

On Dec. 7-8, 2005, a symbolic step towards Islamic unity was taken with the “Makkah al-Mukarramah Declaration” of the Third Session of the Extraordinary Islamic Summit Conference in which member states, including Saudi Arabia, reaffirmed their “unwavering rejection of terrorism, and all forms of extremism and violence.” As Saudi King ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz declared: “Islamic unity would not be reached through bloodshed as claimed by the deviants” (“Moderation and Tolerance Urged at OIC Summit: Stress on Combating Extremism,” The Dawn, Dec. 8, 2005: Internet: http://66.201.122.226/2005/12/08/top1.htm).

Considering the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq and the threat it poses to the entire region, Saudi Arabia may be reassessing its

 

(24)

state-sponsored Salafism and deciding to work towards Islamic unity. As Dr. Kalim Siddiqi, Zaffar Bangash, Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, Imam Muhammad al-Asi, Imam ‘Abdul-‘Alim Musa, Amir ‘Abdul Malik ‘Ali, Yusuf Estes and other mainstream Sunni Muslims have impressed, the fundamental beliefs which Muslims have in common far outweighs the historical differences which emerged after the passing of the Prophet. Regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shi‘i or Sufi, regardless of the school of jurisprudence they follow, Muslims are Muslims first and foremost and should pose a united, non-sectarian front when confronting the enemies of Islam. Opinions regarding the succession of the Prophet and interpretations of Islamic law are primarily personal convictions belonging in the private domain. They can be addressed in the proper academic context, to increase knowledge, and to develop an appreciation for the various expressions of the Islamic faith. There is no place, however, for divisive argumentation in Islam.

In contrast to the Sunni side, where calls for unity remain voices in the wilderness, the Shi‘ite side has a long history of scholarship with a fraternal foundation. With rare exception, it has been the general consensus of Shi‘ite scholars that the followers of ahl al-sunnah are bona fide believers; the only heretics being the Kharijites, the earliest Islamic sect which traces its beginning to a religio-political controversy over the Caliphate and which holds that ‘Ali and his followers became infidels; the nawasib, those who profess hatred towards the Prophet’s Family and the ghulat, the extremists who deify ‘Ali. Among the first Shi‘ite scholars to formulate the fundamentals of faith of the Twelver Shi‘ites from a polemicist perspective was Shaykh Sadduq, one of the scholarly pillars of Shi‘ism, in his famous I‘tiqadat, translated loosely as A Shi‘ite Creed. He lived during intolerant times, a period of rampant takfir [or accusations of infidelity] when tensions ran high between the various schools of thought in Islam, each one vying for supremacy. Although he was a deeply-committed Shi‘ite, he was forthcoming in presenting Shi‘ite beliefs clearly and concisely in comparison with other currents in Islamic thought.

 

(25)

Shaykh Sadduq’s I‘tiqadat was commented upon by one of his students, Shaykh al-Mufid, under the title of Sharh ‘aqa’id al-Sadduq, which remains a popular theological text to this date. Numerous other Shi‘ite scholars wrote valuable books in which they contrasted Sunni and Shi‘i beliefs, including Shaykh Abu Ja‘far al-Tusi (d. 1067-8) and ‘Abd al-Jalil al-Qazwini (d. c. 1190), who put forth some strickingly moderate view, as well as ‘Allamah al-Hilli (d. 1325).

In the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the leading figures of inter-Islamic ecumenism have included Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita, Ayatullah Muhammad Husayn Burujerdi--who worked to unite the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence--‘Allamah Muhammad Jawad Mughniyyah, Ayatullah Shariatmadari, Ayatullah Hasan al-Shirazi, Imam Musa al-Sadr and Ayatullah Marashi-Najafi--who had the unique distinction of having ijazah [permission] of riwayah [to teach Islam] from nearly 400 Shi‘i, Sunni and Zaydi scholars--as well as Ayatullahs Beheshti, Muntazeri, Mutahhari, among many others, all of whom defended the cause of Muslim unity. In recent years, Ayatullah al-Udma Sayyid ‘Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, has repeatedly called for calm between both communities in the most trying of circumstances. The greatest advocate of Islamic unity in recent history was none other that Imam Khumayni. In fact, the late founder of the Islamic Republic ruled that:

Muslims should be awake, Muslims should be alert that if a dispute takes place among Sunni and Shi‘ite brothers, it is harmful to all of us; it is harmful to all Muslims. Those who want to sow discord are neither Sunni nor Shi‘ite, they are agents of the superpowers and work for them. Those who attempt to cause discord among our Sunni and Shi‘ite brothers are people who conspire for the enemies of Islam and want the enemies of Islam to triumph over Muslims. Muslim brothers and sisters will not be segregated by the pseudo-propaganda sponsored by corrupt elements. The source of this matter--that Shi‘ites should be on one side and Sunni on the other--is on the

 

(26)

one hand ignorance and, on the other hand, foreign propaganda. If Islamic brotherhood comes to the fore among Islamic countries, they will become such a great power that none of the global powers will be able to contend with them. Shi‘ite and Sunni brothers should avoid every kind of dispute. Today, discord among us will only benefit those who follow neither Shi‘ah nor Hanafi. They neither want this nor that to exist, and know the way to sow dispute between you and us. We must pay attention that we are all Muslims and we all believe in the Qur’an; we all believe in tawhid and must work to serve the Qur’an and tawhid.

This message of Islamic unity is one that all Muslims, be they Sunni, Shi‘i, or Sufi, should remember, as many of them seem to have forgotten it. While Imam Khumayni worked tirelessly towards Islamic unity, some Shi‘ite scholars have failed to follow in his footsteps and have promoted proselytism and sectarianism, rather than Islamic pluralism. Fortunately, for those interested in Islamic unity within diversity, there exists an excellent body of literature.

While there are many excellent books on Sunni-Shi‘ah dialogue, perhaps the finest work of scholarship on the subject was produced by the Lebanese erudite ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharif al-Din al-Musawi in his legendary Muraja‘at or The Evidence, a discussion by correspondence which took place between the Shi‘ite sage and his Sunni counterpart, Shaykh Shaltut, the Dean of the University of al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt. In fact, the debate was so productive in increasing Sunni-Shi‘ite understanding that it resulted in Shaykh Shaltut issuing a historic fatwa recognizing the Ja‘fari Ithna ‘Ashari madhhab as a legitimate school of jurisprudence in Islam which all Muslims are permitted to follow freely. The work is a model of the proper Muslim mores which are to be observed in any and all debates.

Another well-known polemical work is Peshawar Nights. While claims have been made that the book is of dubious origin, perhaps

 

(27)

produced for propaganda purposes as part of Shi‘ite missionary activities, this does not debilitate the arguments it contains. In recent years, the Tunisian Muhammad al-Tijani, has written several valuable books including Then I was Guided, The Shi‘ah: The True Followers of the Sunnah, Ask Those Who Know, and With the Truthful, all of which have been translated into numerous languages. On the positive side, these books present a wealth of information and documentation supporting Shi‘ism and have served to bring many Sunnis closer to and even into Shi‘ism. On the negative side, the author is neither an academic nor a traditional scholar of Islam, as he readily admits. As a result, his books are not always free from error, contradiction, value judgments, and unbridled enthusiasm. At times, his arguments are expressed in terms which seem abrasive to some Sunnis, sometimes accentuating division rather than attenuating it. This applies even more to websites like answering-ansar.org and certain articles published on shianews.com. While both of these websites are informative, they fight fire with fire when they should be fighting fire with water. In the Preface of Devil’s Deception of the Nasibi Wahhabis which appears on answering-ansar.org, ‘Abdul Hakeem Orano clearly explains that “This book takes the method of attack.” Evidently, this is an inappropriate approach. As Almighty Allah instructs, “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance” (16:125).

As can be observed from the previous survey, the most serious shortcoming of scholarship in the area of Shi‘ite-Sunni dialogue is that it centers on the exoteric aspects of the religion. It deals with concrete, down to earth doctrines, as opposed to matters of spirituality, mysticism and metaphysics. The present study, Luis Alberto Vittor’s Shi‘ite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy takes the debate between Shi‘ism and Sunnism to a higher plateau elevating arguments to the spiritual sphere in his profound philosophical tract.

 

(28)

In closing, we would like to thank Professor Luis Alberto Vittor for trusting us with this translation. We have remained as faithful to the text as possible and attempted to render it into a scholarly yet idiomatic English. We would like to thank Mr. Abu Dharr Manzolillo, a true friend and father figure, who has stood by our side for almost two decades. We would like to thank all the scholars who bestowed their knowledge upon us, from Mawlanas Baqri and Rizvi in Canada to the Grand Ayatullahs in Qum and Najaf. We would like to thank our wife, Rachida Bejja, for repeatedly reviewing, correcting, and editing the Arabic transliteration, as well as our son, Yasin al-Amin Morrow, both of whom served as a constant source of solace. We would like to thank NASIMCO, the North American Shi‘a Ithna-‘Ashari Muslim Communities for offering to sponsor and distribute this book. In particular we extend our gratitude to Mr. Hussein Walji, President of NASIMCO, and Dr. Shiraz Datoo, who serves as Director. We would also like to send a special thanks to Mr. Muhammad Taqi Ansariyan for graciously supporting this scholarly endeavor and commend him for his inestimable contributions to the fielf of Shi‘ite studies through the publication and distribution of academic titles. We hope and pray that the following translation will be a welcomed contribution to scholarship in the field of Islamic Studies, will benefit both scholars and students of Islam, serve as a wake-up call to Western Orientalists, and bring about a greater degree of understanding and appreciation for the unity within the diversity of Islamic orthodoxy. Finally, as the translator and editor of the the following work, we accept full responsibility for its content and commit ourselves to correcting any shortcomings that it may contain in future editions.

Jumada II 1427 / July 2006

 

 

       Dr. John A. Morrow, Ph.D.
 Assistant Professor of Modern Languages
Northern State University
Aberdeen, South Dakota