22. What is the viewpoint of Shi′a about the companions of the Prophet? How it is possible that the companions, who are above doing anything contrary to the wish of the Prophet, heard the text regarding the Imam once, twice or thrice, then deviate therefrom?

Answer:

Some of the companions of the Prophet did not obey his traditions and commands that related to politics.

Our legacy of traditions, which has been left to us by those companions, indicates that the they adhered to all texts as long as they were relevant to the faith, concerned about the matters related to the Hereafter, such as the Prophet’s hadith regarding the obligatory prayers And so on.

As regarding his texts that deal with political matters such as succession, government, administration, legislation, invasions, etc., they did not see that they had to follow or adhere to them in all circumstances; rather, they allowed themselves to practice a measure of research, discretion, and ijtihad. If they saw in opposing such texts a promotion of their cause, or an advantage to their power, they would oppose them. They may even seek to please the Prophet by doing just so. They were convinced that the Arabs would not accept ‘Ali's rule nor follow a text in such a matter, because he pressured them a great deal while enforcing the Will of Allah in their regard. Ali had spilled their blood with his sword in while promoting the Word of Allah, dismantling all their masks while defending the truth, until Allah's Will became dominant in spite of every infidel. Therefore, they would not obey him willingly, nor would they follow such texts except by force, having attributed to him the spilling of all blood in the way of Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (S).

They knew that he was the best among the Hashimites, after the Messenger of Allah (S), without any doubt or dispute. For this reason, some Arabs waited for a chance to annihilate him; they sought means to deal with him, and they bore a great deal of grudge against him and his descendants.

How can these people willingly submit to a man like that while "They are the foremost in disbelief and hypocrisy, so much so that they ought not know the limits of what Allah has revealed unto His Messenger" (Qur'an; 9:97). Moreover, Allah says about them, "Among the people of Medina are those who are stubborn in hypocrisy; you [O Our Prophet Muhammad] do not know them; We know them." (Qur'an, 9:101)

There is another reason. Quraysh in particular and Arabs in general used to envy him for the favors Allah bestowed upon him. He has been uplifted by Allah, His Messenger and the wise, to a sublime status due to his knowledge and feats; peers fall short of their attainment; those qualified hesitated to attempt to compete with him. He has, through his feats and attributes, won a status from Allah and His Messenger coveted by the hopeful, and a prestige unattainable by the most ambitious. For these reasons, jealousy filled the hearts of the hypocrites. The spiteful, ungrateful, and inequitable hypocrites, in addition to opportunists, all agreed not to discharge their responsibility towards him; therefore, they left these traditions behind their backs, entrusting them to oblivion.

In addition, Quraysh and other Arabs had by then coveted political dominance for their own respective tribes, and their ambition extended thereto. For this reason, they decided to discard the covenant and were determined to ignore the will. Therefore, they all collaborated to forget the text, pledging not to mention it at all. They all agreed to divert the caliphate, since its inception, from its rightful candidate, who was assigned to it by their Prophet, and make it through election and choice, so that each one of their quarters might have a justification for hoping to attain it, though after a while.

The good ancestors then could not force those folks to implement the spirit of the text for fear they might rebel if they did, and in apprehension of the dire consequences of disputing regarding such an issue. Hypocrisy surfaced immediately after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the might of the hypocrites increased by such a loss. The dark souls of the infidels grew darker, the foundations of the faith weakened, and the hearts of the Muslims waned, so much so that they became like frightened cattle in a winter night, surrounded by wolves and ferocious beasts.

In such circumstances, ‘Ali’s concern about Islam prompted him to refrain from demanding the caliphate for himself and overlooking certain matters, knowing that demanding the caliphate under such circumstances would endanger the nation and jeopardize the safety of the faith. Therefore, he opted to refrain just in preference of the interest of Islam and that of the common welfare, of the good of the future to that of the present.

He, therefore, remained at home, refusing to give his allegiance until he was forced to leave, just to (silently) enforce his own right, and defying those who forsook him. Had he rushed to give his allegiance, he would have had neither argument nor pretext, but he, by doing so, safeguarded both religion and his own right to rule the believers, thus proving the originality of his mind, his overwhelming clemency, his patience, and preference of the public interest to that of his own.

As regarding the three caliphs and their supporters, these have interpreted the text regarding his succession in the manner, which we indicated. This should not surprise us at all once we come to know how they interpret and personally comprehend other texts of the Prophet (S) regarding issues such as succession, government, administration, legislation, etc. They probably did not consider them religious issues; so, it was easy for them to practically oppose them.

The incidents in which they did not follow the texts of hadith are innumerable. Take, for example, the calamity on Thursday, which is the most famous of such incidents and the most abominable among them. It is narrated by all authors of sahihs and sunan, and it was documented by all traditionists and historians.

‘Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn ‘Utbah ibn Mas’ud quoted Ibn ‘Abbas saying, "when death approached the Messenger of Allah (S) his house was full of men including ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. The Messenger of Allah (S) said, "Let me write you something that will forever protect you against straying after me." ‘Umar said, "The Prophet is under the influence of pain, and you have with you the Qur'an; so, the Book of Allah suffices us." Those who were present there argued among themselves, and their argument developed into a dispute. Some of them said, "Come close to the Prophet so that he may write something for you that will safeguard you against straying after him," while others repeated what ‘Umar had said. When the argument and dispute intensified in the presence of the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah (S) said to them, "Get away from me." Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, "The calamity, the real calamity, is what caused the Messenger of Allah (S) to desist from writing what he wished to write, due to their argument and dispute."1

They did not follow the Prophet's command due to their being satisfied with the Book of Allah as they claimed, as if they never read the verse: "Whatever the Messenger hands over to you, take it, and whatever he forbids you therefrom, obey him." (Qur'an; 59:7)

They said, "The Messenger of Allah is delirious," as if they never read the verse: "It is the speech of an eminent Messenger, empowered by the One with the Throne, peaceful to those who obey Him; verily, your fellow is not possessed." (Qur'an; 81:19-22)

Moreover, His statement, the Exalted, "Your fellow has neither strayed, nor has he yielded to temptation; he utters nothing out of his own inclination; it is but what is revealed unto him of the Revelation; he is taught by One mighty in powers." (Qur'an; 53:2-5)

In addition to many such verses laden with divine wisdom, all testifying to his being divinely protected from delirium. Yet even reason by itself testifies to the same, but they were aware of the fact that he, the Messenger of Allah (S) wished to strengthen the covenant of caliphate, and emphasize its being the monopoly of ‘Ali in particular, and the Imams among his purified progeny in general.2

Justice refuses to find an excuse for those who had permitted such a calamity to take place. Had it been, a simple slip like another one before it, and a rare occurrence, the matter would have been tolerable, but it was the catastrophe of the century that split the nation's spine.

• 1. . Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 5, no. 4431, "Book of the patient of Prophet" & vol. 1, p. 22, "Book of knowledge" & Muslim, vol. 2, p. 14 & vol. 3, p. 1259, no. 1637 & Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p. 325. There is no dispute regarding the authenticity of this hadith.
• 2. . To know more about what Sunni scholars say about this event and their answer, refer to the book: "The Right Path", “Al-Muraja'at” by Sayyid Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi, online at: https://www.al-islam.org/al-murajaat-abd-al-husayn-sharaf-al-din-al-musawi