A Victim Lost In Saqifah - Revised Edition with Comprehensive Additions

This text is a collection of every conjecture on the events of Saqifa and the repercussions it had on Islamic history. It is not a a narrational book of the event, but a scientific criticism, verification and a deep research of every conjecture on each page so that the readers can gain complete information about them.

Get PDF [3] Get EPUB [4] Get MOBI [5]

A Victim Lost in Saqifah Vol. 1

Dedication

Dedicated to

Zahra (s.a.) who bore most pains until the moment of her martyrdom because of Saqifah.

Fatima Research and Study Group

Acknowledgement

The Ansariyan Publications would like to express acknowledgement to Syed Athar Rizvi and Dr. Hasan Najafi for their contributions to the translation of this work into English.

Preface

By: Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi for the First and Second Editions

Preface To The First Edition

In His Exalted Name

I have read this book with care and attention and found it a collection compiled with a motive emanated from an ardent belief in the fundamentals of Shia school, which is the only clear manifestation of Islam. The great deal of constancy and research is much appreciable, which is further espoused with truth, sincerity and openness in dealing with the doubts by way of evaluation and review. Furthermore, it rises from staunch love and affection to defend the sanctity of divinely ordained authority of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet, peace be on them.

Regretfully it is being witnessed that there are individuals having long been fed at the widespread table of the Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt who are under mandate of reason and religion to strengthen the foundation of the school of those sacred rays of divine throne. However, they have no regard to the bread they have grown upon. They have weakened, rather ruined the very pillars of Shia school disguised as if adhering to truth and defending the sanctity of Islamic unity which is only a deceptive show and a polite blow. Tabarra; that is distancing oneself from enemies of the Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt and despising them is one of the two keystones of religion. They have created a question mark against it. They claim that it is against Quran and tradition.

Sometimes according to them, the office of Imamate is a separate entity independent from Caliphate. Sometime in principles of belief also they have created a base and a branch. They introduce belief in Imamate as a branch, as a subsidiary thing liable to personal jurisprudence. As such, it does not constitute any obligation on the part of the person in event of his denial.

Sometimes the words and deeds of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a), in his dealings with Caliphs is a ground to them to justify their allegation that Ali was totally in agreement with their Caliphate.

It seems that they have not heard the painful cries of that oppressed Imam that used to come out of his aching heart as he says:

“When Allah took the Prophet (to himself) a group of men went back on their tracks. The ways (of misguidance) ruined them and they placed trust in deceitful intriguers, showed consideration to other than kinsmen, abandoned the kin whom they had been ordered to love and shifted the building from its strong foundation and built it in other than its (proper) place. They are the source of every shortcoming and the door of gropers in the dark. They were moving to and fro in amazement and lay intoxicated in the way of the people of the Pharaohs. They were either bent on this world and taking support on it or away from faith and removed from it.” 1

Attention to it is a matter of absolute necessity. Research about a true religion is the most essential element of life for Islamic society. A tangible proof of its salubrity and originality of being from divine should be brought home to people. The minds of young generation should be enlightened with regard to its principles and fundamentals as well as to defend the precincts of its sanctity. This does not mean sedition among groups or creating differences in thoughts of people. It is a matter of regret that there are individuals who refrain from discussing facts about religion and analyzing issues pertaining to beliefs and its literature. Their excuse is to preserve unity. Those who discuss and debate such matters perhaps are accused of sedition causing disunity and creating crevices in a concrete block of unity. It seems that this fact has escaped their sight. Unity appreciated by reason and religion – and at the same time a sacred one – is unity that should be framed over the pivot of truth rotating around truth. Otherwise it will be a unity at wrong (supposing if it comes into being). It will be unholy unity resulting in nothing but loss, havoc and emptiness.

It is natural first to know the truth. Then people should be invited towards unity based on truth. This needs to undergo a discussion and all-sided research in religion to find out what is there after truth except losing the way and going astray.2

Now the present collection which is an output of a year-long labor of a group of learned, believer youths and committed persons; to do justice to it, one should say honestly that it has originated from faith and a staunch love towards the most sacred position of divinely authorized Guardianship (Wilayat) of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) and Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. Peace be upon them all.

Those who are acquainted with the task of writing books know that constancy in discourses and in scattered writings of speculators is not easy. Grouping and collecting the doubted data from spoken words and writings and then their orderly arrangement and classification, then to make it coherent is not an easy job. Obvious it is as to what could be the corrupt aftermaths begotten by a doubtful belief. They have not allowed this to escape without replying. In this regard, they have made full use of books of great scholars of religion and faith. Considering all this, one should honestly acknowledge the difficulty and labor involved in it. One cannot undergo this burden unless one is blessed with moral impetus and love to defend the true faith.

Therefore all who love Shia faith, particularly the youths, will read this collection with interest in order to know how conjectures and allegations are spread which should not go without answering.

In the end, I beseech the Lord to bless the author and his colleagues with prosperity in both the worlds and bestow upon him bounty of service to religion in future also.

1-10-80 (9th Shawwal 1422)
Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

*****

Preface To The Second Edition

By the Grace of the Almighty, this valuable book: A Victim Lost in Saqifah3 is being published for the second time, revised and with additional data on some parts of original text. After reading the additional matter, I realized that it was necessary for the original text as it completes it.

I hope for continuation of such a service to religion on the part of the author by the grace of God.

12-8-83 (18th Ramadan al-Mubarak 1425)
Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

- 1. Nahjul Balagha, Faid, Sermon 150 End of Part Two.

- 2. Surah Yunus 10:32.

- 3. The title of this set of volumes is adapted on the work written by Martyr Dr. Paknijad under the same title with the hope that it will be published again after being out of print for so many years.

Introduction: Fundamentals Of Evaluation And Criticism Of Writings On Islamic Unity

First Introduction: Necessity Of Thought For Islamic Unity

We are impelled to notice a particular sort of religious thinking named ‘revival’ as we go back a recent century and look into schools of Islamic thought.

These days revivalism is a term applied to opinions and views of many Muslims thinkers.

Most of us are acquainted with this term without having full knowledge of it.

If we want to simply describe this term on the basis of existing writings in this field, we must say that contemporary tendency of thought among Muslims aims at revival of religious system, which they consider either of these two: Comprehension of faith or practice of faith.

Revivalists consider revivalism a necessity towards preserving religion in this new world.

As such, it could be said that all religious revivalists in the beginning intellectually endeavor leaning on the belief that religion is workable in present society. It can attend or mend basic human difficulties, of whatever depth it be, in various dimensions. Therefore, we can depend on it or desire it since it is a need.

But how?!

An immediate question that strikes the mind is how to prove it in practice and display worth and capability.

The real issue, from this stage onward, for this category of new thinkers of religion shall be to reply this query: How it is possible to raise the issue of faith once more in these days of competition that has gripped human thought? Besides, how to face other schools fraught with consummate ability and respond to all other important ones of the day in a useful analysis. And this is the need.

Hence it is befitting to say that the most important efforts of new religious thinkers can be summed up in one sentence – in the present age, religion renovated by themselves is returned to appear on the social stage in a status of a powerful and energetic school.

Thought of Islamic unity is related to the same category of revivalist thoughts. Such can be understood from what in brief is told about the endeavors of revivalists.

Therefore, it has always been the point of focus of those who desire to tread the path of revival in a way to provide a variety to the outlook.

This group of revivalists is mindful of the extent of influence of faith in individual and social life. Dispute and the fight of religious people and coming into being of divisions among Muslims has become a cause to move towards Islamic unity. This practical revival guarantees a kind of revisal in fundamentals of Muslim thought or in the outlook of Islamic theory towards creating a change in social relations of Muslims.

It depends upon the activity of a revivalist as to its kind towards achieving Islamic unity whether by means of a social or cultural movement. Fundamentals of its theory shall differ accordingly.

Basically, a revivalist is a political and social activist. However, he is also an intellectual and cultural activist. He spends his revivalist life in changing the beliefs of individuals of the society by way of presenting theatrical views and spreading them among public.

Of course, a seeker of unity too can adjust himself among various subjects of this group and at the same time exert his efforts in society through propaganda activities.

Second Introduction: Valuable Standards Of Worksheet Of The Thought Of Islamic Unity

A perusal of various indicators of Islamic unity shows that advocates of this theory have utilized different methods for its achievement. Several methods, including occasionally contradictory ones, have found room in the worksheet of revivalists.

Exact knowledge of each of these methods is very much important. Type of practice in behavior and action is more useful than directing the belief of individuals and more important than seeking unity.

As we said, thought of Islamic unity is similar to that of revivalism. Therefore it follows the governing principles.

Hence it seems natural that we too, as Shia analysts, should consider Islamic unity subordinate to principles and regulations pertaining to revivalism and standards of critical evaluation. Accordingly, we must be able to evaluate these values.

In a critical evaluation of Islamic unity, we must treat each indicator independently. We must take the grounds of evaluation of worksheet of revivalism into consideration and set it for evaluation.

From here onward, we shall try to comment in brief about these standards and state our position.

Revivalists in their intellectual endeavors should maintain two important and fundamental rules because of their claim in this respect. A revivalist in the run of his activities is liable to observe:

• First rule: ability and forwardness

• Second rule: originality and sincerity

Though these two rules form the whole, yet through this whole itself difference is apt to appear. This makes the trend of criticism rather difficult. On the other hand, it can be said that through Shia viewpoint in the whole history of revivalism these two real bases give ground to criticism and explanation. A revivalist cannot overlook the deep peeping eye of a critic of Shia society nor be indifferent towards the inquiry regarding the extent of consideration of the rule touching originality.

Because every religious thinker at least in a position of claim is willing to show that his religious thought is pristine and based on original teachings of religion and pure from irreligious conjectures or unauthentic additions. And on the other hand he wishes to attain a strong platform among religions and a stronghold enabling him to answer problems.

Therefore, in the trend of revivalism these two distinguishing indicators should be pursued and sought.

In this analysis whatever we Shias employ under the title of standard of scaling originality and sincerity it is either in accordance with teachings of Quran or Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt; in other words beliefs that govern the Shiite school; because the real and true Islam is reflected in teachings of this school alone.

We, Shias, believe on the basis of teachings of the Prophet.

Whoever wants to lay his hand on religious literature or know about teachings of Islam must refer to Ahlul Bayt (‘a) after the Prophet. There is no source at all to focus the light of truth of this religion except by direct contact with Prophet’s progeny through their teachings.

Any knowledge by name of religion of Islam, or on the whole any thought not supported by teachings of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt, in the end is doomed to deviation and destined to go astray. Ahlul Bayt of Prophet are the only origins to obtain therefrom true knowledge of Islam. Besides, they are the only source to know a thought or a theory as to its being a religious one or in line with teachings of Shia school.1 This is the only way of obtaining religious knowledge, which is knowledge of guidance. This is the only way to trust in correctness of thoughts on display in the name of religion.

Without any doubt, the very root of learnings of true religion is contained in teachings of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. If any knowledge or information with the label of Islam does not happen to be in line with their teachings, every certitude of it is wrong; it is a waste and rescinded.

Accordingly, if a word about Islamic unity is put in, it should be based on very religion itself. In other words, it should originate from real teachers of religion; that is Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. It must be so according to Shia belief. When this stage is still in dispute and the standard of sincerity and rule towards its achievement is yet unsettled, to enter into another theory; that is activities of revivalism, seems out of place and to no end.

In this criticism and analysis, the standard of truth is the wholesome and absolute application of thoughts without least leniency or a bent towards Shiaism or beliefs contained therein though this school is absolute truth.

The smallest slip or an overlook in application of thoughts of unity with fundamentals of Ja’fari Shiaism of twelve Imams has brought forward the ground that renders short the standard of originality and sincerity. This has further rendered the thought irreligious and without backing of Islam. No saying goes if there had been any deliberate amendment or departure from the basis of this school.

Although we have great respect for those who possess opinion and have moral duty towards critics and analysts, we never give sanction to ourselves to overlook truth or ignore the right being trespassed. In no condition and in no case we shall fall short. We have no right to do so. It does not serve as a platform to reach agreements thereupon for the sake of our or others’ interests.

The absolute truth belongs to Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. It is found in their persons and rests with them. Therefore, if we entertain any kind of thought or conjecture in the name of religion, which is not in accordance with this school, it is as though we have trampled truth and rightfulness, which is their concern and tribute, belonging to them alone.

Shias are after originality and sincerity of thought when they confront Muslim revivalism. They are also after the ability or strength in this regard. They believe if they sacrifice one for the sake of other, it will certainly result in shortage. One will lack the other. It will be an incomplete and unconsummated thought. In other words, we are taking refuge in an irreligious conjecture.

Ability or strength alone is not the concern of Shias. Sincerity in religious intention too is necessary. The excessive desire, on the part of newcomers to this thought, to exhibit strength could spoil sincerity and diminish its originality. Likewise, to create strength they might commit some additions to religion, which the true Islam is pure and purged of. As such, the brushstrokes they would apply could reduce elegance of real Islam or effect unwanted and undesired additions thereon making ugly the beautiful. Wrong feeding in a long run will result in the school losing its very entity. Such will be the consequence of revivalism taking to itself the twists and turns of deviation of belief.

Creating ability without sincerity and pristine originality shall result into a constant fear – not only in issue of Islamic unity but throughout the varieties of revivalism.

The output of revivalists must be a faith. Under pretext of revivalism, faith or religion should not be substituted by some other thought or conjecture.

First and foremost, sincerity and originality must be safeguarded in revivalism. Therefore, the basic difficulty in confronting any type of revivalist thought is the religion to support these thoughts. Without purity and originality there will be confusion. This will be the case with all aspects of revivalism beyond Islamic unity.

To what extent these outlooks have been able to protect the real pillars of religion, remains to be seen. Further, originality of religion must be in association with it so that Shias could take it in account of religious values and call it Religious Thought.

Contemporary revivalists have taken great steps from the position of strength. The originality and purity of religious thought remains uncertain. There are great many questions, which still need to be answered reasonably.

Islamic unity too is not exempted from this rule.

Third Introduction: Familiarity With Writings On Thoughts Of Islamic Unity

When we read the writings and opinions of supporters of Islamic unity, we easily understand the bulk done in this respect. However, very little is done towards classifying and differentiating them scientifically.

Perhaps it is one reason for difficulty one has to face in analyzing their outlook. Further, it gives room to mistake the stand of critic to the effect that he is intentional and deliberate in his motive. Absence of classification between viewpoints stands as a cause in this regard.

To arrive at a correct analysis about Islamic unity depends upon these two packages of information:

A) Acquaintance with standards of evaluation of output of revivalism. Locating the position in this regard.

B) Accurate knowledge of various writings about Islamic unity.

We revert to history of contemporary thought while trying to lay hands on the theory of Islamic unity and its application in our social life. We become aware that in the first step we could follow two ways to reach ‘unity’ and to have a discourse thereon.

In other words, there remain two routes to tally towards attaining the aspired Islamic unity. They are:

• One: Political and social movement

• Two: Movement of belief and thought

As mentioned before, both these lines depend on theoretical foundations – unique in their kind. We shall try to comment on the basis of these packages regarding particulars about Islamic unity from the angle of thought and belief.

- 1. Shia school stands for the same teachings of Quran and Prophet’s progeny. It does necessarily include all the views of Shia thinkers.

Beginning Of Discussion: Awareness Of Basics Of Intellectual Movement – Research Towards Creating Islamic Unity

By the efforts of Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Qummi an institute, Darul Taqreeb, was founded in Egypt in recent years. It can be considered a starting point of this movement.1

We pursue the movements – scientific, intellectual and those of research since then. We come across irregular and contradictory views and outlooks. Taking into consideration originality and purity of thought, they can be classified into two categories.

First Tendency: Outlooks which desire to create ability and achieve Islamic unity. However they ignore to maintain the rule of originality and purity. They believe:

“We must not immediately pass judgment that this is right and that, wrong. We must rather control and check differences. We should specify its limits.”2

“We do not say this is right and that is wrong…”3

“It should not be the concern of one who calls for unity among religions to say which one is right and which wrong or which one is correct and which erroneous. Of course, deviation from Islam can serve a reason for him to put in a word as was the practice with men of sagacity like Sayyid Jamaluddin and some of his pupils and fellow thinkers.

We have witnessed the climax of such an invitation launched by Jama’atul Taqreeb Bain Al-Mazahab Al-Islamia (i.e. Society for Reconciliation of Islamic Sects). We must point out that the two obligations should not be combined. One: Invitation towards unity and two: protection or support to religion. Books and articles written in this regard have little to do with unity. Generally, their motive is to prove their religion is right while the others’ is wrong. They add to confusion and block the way of unity.”4

They also believe:

“Nearness has its own demands...that is this distinction should always be kept in view in order to protect it from a decree (Fatwa) someone might issue against it…in all activities of culture, intellect, scholastic theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, traditions and study of narrators (Rijaal) this distinction should be above all.”!5

Therefore the basis of thought of our predecessors was established on conjecture that reality can always be sacrificed for sake of unity.

Second Tendency: The outlooks have paid utmost attention to the rule of maintaining originality and sincerity as well as seeking truth. This is in addition to creation of ability, belief and adherence to necessary Islamic unity. In view of these two tendencies, it can be said that Islamic unity has two meanings – one, correct and the other, wrong.

Islamic unity in the correct meaning: It is to create a political unity, which is good and useful against common enemy. This keeps any type of dispute or war from taking place. Religious beliefs would not stand as a reason for bloodshed among Muslims.

There is no controversy between this type of Islamic unity, which should correctly be termed as Islamic unity and discussions of Shia beliefs. Therefore, limits of right and wrong shall remain as they are. They cannot be abolished. However, it gives ground for distinctly sketching the existing limits between right and wrong. Drawing of limits carries two benefits:

Firstly: The union overruns political boundary and that of interests. As such, it becomes real.

Secondly: In future – in a long run – protection of this political unity for the sake of interests cannot become a cause to forget or neglect right and wrong besides any deviation from beliefs from correct Shia faith. In addition to this, correct Islamic unity cannot give rise to any possibility of taking a wrong meaning to itself; that is Shia beliefs to melt into Sunni beliefs.6

- 1. The thought of nearness among Muslims and an invitation to it took ground in Egypt by the proposal of Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Qummi. The scholars of first category of al-Azhar besides Shia head of clergies. The late Burujardi supported the idea. A great number of writers joined the movement.

- 2. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat (Call of unity) Pg. 121.

- 3. Ibid: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 123.

- 4. Ibid: Article: ‘Elements of Islamic unity and its handicaps’ quoted in Book of Unity Pgs. 25 & 52-53.

- 5. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 10-11.

- 6. Tazweeb = melting.

Introduction To Applications Of Two Tendencies By Way Of Criticism And Narration

Under this heading, we shall dwell on indications drawn with a motive of creating Islamic unity. However it has become a ground for serious criticism because of the standards of evaluation output.1 It is of such a nature that we cannot see any religious origin in it; nor could it be turned into a religious thought. However in a particular period of time they might have shown a very good ability towards creating Islamic unity.

We shall introduce each of these indications. We shall treat the analysis done by religious scholars as source pertaining to second tendency.

These analyses are collected here to show correct outlooks and to scrutinize insincere writings.

- 1. As our aim in this writing is identification of all types of conjectures that are being spread and to warn about them we have presented the actual quotations that mention those conjectures so that readers may gain complete information about them. It is also important to remember that acceptance of any of these propagated views is related to a type of acceptance of all other conjectures, so we must not be careless of any of these things. (The arrangement of Criticism and Scrutiny of these conjectures is done according to this relationship).

Discourse 1: Keeping Quiet And Prohibiting Difference-Creating Activities

Introduction

It is perhaps the most simple and at the same time, most insincere method of creating Islamic unity. It is completely based on narrations mentioned in the first tendency. It advocates restriction from difference- producing analyses and maintaining silence. Now at this advanced stage, the secrets are recommended not be told.

Hence it is said:

“Now, as it is said that these are secrets of progeny of Muhammad, then they must be kept confidential and not revealed.”1

Obviously, unity gained by negligence of knowledge will be imaginary unity. Furthermore, the outcome can well be judged if the steps, already suggested, are to be taken on road to Islamic unity such as:

“In controversial issues we should view afresh and anew. We should find new ways of friendship. We should give no room to new differences.”!2

“Many differences in our time are groundless. As such, many differences should be forgotten and ignored. We should revise the method of debating issues or arguments.”!3

“We must not dig graves under the sun in order to bring to life what is dead and buried.”!4

“The subject matters that carry differences should not be discussed too openly in meetings or gatherings held under the title of ‘unity’.!5

“What we say in this article can be summarized as: Muslims must not speak about differences that existed among their own leaders fourteen centuries ago: and more undesireable it is to speak about differences that have happened later and are constant and current.”!6

“Narration of any matter that might hurt our Sunni brothers is prohibited.”!7

“…There are certain matters which must be taken into consideration by broadcasting stations, television and media collectively. Besides, writers and speakers also must delete such matters, particularly about the Fatimid period in gatherings. Then alone unity is possible. Whatever, it could be, if it hurts the feelings of our Sunni brothers it must be avoided in our public gatherings and should not be mentioned at all. I can prove that whatever is being published in books and newspapers and told over the pulpits in religious gatherings and over TV and Radio is sufficient to injure the feelings of our Sunni brothers. Hence it is prohibited.”!8

“We Muslims are not allowed to behave in a way that could endanger Ummah’s unity: To protect a part of the Ummah or Faith – no matter if that Faith happens to belong to Ahlul Bayt of Prophet – we cannot injure unity as a whole.”!9

“From the viewpoint of religious obligation anything that weakens Islam and strengthens infidelity or hurts Islamic unity, as a whole, is prohibited. It is obvious that consequent to such speeches there will not remain any unity in the Islamic front. As such, Islam will become weak against infidelity.”!10

Criticism And Analysis

Ustad Ali Iraqchi Hamadani has discussed in detail in his book, Sad Dars Az Bahas-e-Imamat the captioned topic. We have summarized them below retaining the original points:

“Perhaps before a discussion on Imamate takes place it comes to mind that in this age when Muslims are facing such terrible enemies, are such discussions beneficial or not? Because the nature of this subject of Imamate is such that it necessarily renews differences, which are cornerstones laid immediately after the demise of Prophet. Various animosities and several bloodsheds have occurred since then. Because of these differences, the real enemy is neglected….as the unity of Muslims is most important necessity and discussions on Imamate cause disunity, for the sake of safeguarding unity, it is prudent to keep quiet...[because] the its harm is less than the harm of disunity which gives room to foreign influence.”11

In reply to this objection the following questions may be posed:

“Is unity and integration useful in every subject and matter? Or subjects differ in this respect? There is no doubt that any subject if it happens to be useful or reasonable for an Ummah, co-ordination and co-operation becomes necessary for its achievement. On the contrary, any subject of no benefit – its availability is not only unnecessary but even harmful– Therefore elegance of the word ‘unity’ should not deceive us. As such, we must keep in view the aim prior to unity. Besides, Quran too approves unity if it be for truth and considers it harmful if it be in a wrong direction. Furthermore, it recommends having unity if it be for God’s sake. But it prohibits unity for the sake of wrong and falsehood.”12

“Consequently, according to reason and Quran every man is obliged to judge the matter first. If it is correct and right he may extend his hand of unity towards a group. If it is otherwise he must refrain from it. As such, unity is necessary and desirable. However the aim must become transparent ahead of unity. Truth will cast a shadow over unity. Now to arrive at the truth, there is no way other than a debate or discussion which is not workable in a friendly atmosphere.”13

If we desire that the difference that appeared among Muslims immediately after the Prophet’s passing away should disappear and vanish, we must search for a ground to pluck it from its root.

“We ought to know the events as to what they were; or persons as to who they were? Either events or persons are causes of difference after the Prophet. As a result, when we lay hands upon them we must draw a line between them and Islam. In other words, we must separate them from Islam. The reality of Islam will be obtained. Then we must be united to preserve this reality.

It goes without saying that the issue of Imamate and leadership became the cause of difference. After the Prophet’s passing away, a group claimed this position and therefrom sprung the difference.

So prior to unity, a debate is necessary into this subject in order to reach truth so that unity could be based on truth and reality. Otherwise such a unity would be useless and impossible.”14

“Now this objection arises that: Whether it is good and sensible to be truthful about anything in any age or not? Most probably it might be said that to maintain silence is dictated by reason when telling the truth and narrating facts brings unwanted consequences. Such undesired aftermath must be avoided. Religiously too our infallible Imams have recommended dissimulation in cases when truth becomes a cause of mischief.15 Therefore we should choose a way of protecting truth and safeguarding reality so that truth may not be totally sacrificed. The very prestige and entity of Muslims may not be destroyed. Instead of such discussions, we must try to make Muslims come closer. For the sake of protecting a greater reality we may overlook this.”16

In reply we say:

“Subjects and instances must be scrutinized case by case. If truth be useful, it is good to speak. Else, one must resort to silence.17 But it should be understood that Imamate is a very beneficial subject. No harm comes from it. Of course it depends on the way it is dealt so as to not end in a fracas or foul-mouthing.”18

When one aims to reach truth through a debate or discussion, the trend will be logic, reason, proof and never abuse or inflexibility. Such a type of argument carries no corruption except benefits to a great extent.”19

“In short, discussion about Imamate in an atmosphere away from childish bigotry and remote from abuses and vilifications has had been beneficial in every age and in the present age also.”20

“Some short-sighted people imagine that since Shias believe Ali as immediate successor of Prophet and Sunnis believe Abu Bakr to be the immediate successor of the Prophet etc., so if Shias do not refer to the issue of succession of Prophet and show respect and affection towards the three Caliphs who preceded Ali this difference will be completely removed. Muslim all over the world could be united and become a power worth consideration! These people don’t know that if supposing such a thing ever took place, the enemy will seek some other way to ignite differences.”

Well, to reach a tangible result we have a suggestion. You separate Shia population from Muslims. Do all other sects of Muslims have unity among themselves although they share the same belief with regard to Caliphate? No. They are not united. Their respective governments too are not united with one another. Their nations too, although under the banner of Islam, are not in one row of Islam. The gap of disunity is more pronounced there.”21

“In fact the great block on way of unity is imperialism and imperialists who have been active in every age in fomenting differences and keeping alive disunity.”22

“Can these pains be assuaged by our silence regarding the right of Ali and his sons?

While it is that all these differences, mischiefs and bloodshed have been there only because the Shia society is loyal and devoted to the right of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet and they do not entertain any friendly feelings towards their enemies. See how far injustice has gone! To what extent is this ignorance?! The body of Islam and Muslims is weakened due to shortage of blood which is the source of life in both the worlds (this and the next). God and His Prophet have pointed out this. All Muslim sects have narrated it. In other words, it is to be in line with Ali and his infallible sons. We must seek their embrace to invigorate Islam and Muslims. We cannot act like those in the guise of open-mindedness and waste this minimum blood resulting in collapse of Islam, only for the sake of unity and attaining power and pomposity.”23

Those who claim unity desire Shias to give up their particular belief. Of course, they are after their own interests. However, they ignore the fact that the enemy will anyway persist in his task through some other means so that differences remain.

“In any case, the issue of Imamate if argued on basis of reason and evidence; will result in unity not disintegration.”24

“Because in this discussion, we shall cover beliefs particular to each of the two parties referring to original Islamic sources that is Quran and authentic traditions; unveil truth and bring to fore the divine rope of rescue. Then all will together hold the hand of unity under the rich shadow of truth. The glory and greatness gone long ago will be regained by crushing foreign enemies and their associates by means of oneness and sacrifice. Indeed, such a unity will be a living one and deep-rooted.”25

This type of discussion will give ground to:

“To discover reasons of difference through perfect scrutiny. Then to draw a line between right and wrong. Thus, to know and recognize enemies who inserted the wrong into right by deception and cheating so that we can boycott them and those with them and discover Islam – pure, pristine, real and original – that the Prophet brought to us and introduced for our practice. Such an association that will come into being will be with knowledge and learning. Unity that will be gained will be fruitful among Muslims and fatal to outsiders and adversaries.

In such a case, the enemy will be deprived of excuse of differences of belief and other excuses would also become ineffective.

Because the enemy aims to gain from ignorance of people and thereby to obtain power over them and create disunity. Knowledge and awareness are strong walls to prevent the enemy from advancing his influence on Muslims. And discussion on Imamate leads to awareness, knowledge, exposing of realities and truth.”26

Through discussion on Imamate we can gain following things:

“Difference of beliefs can be repudiated. Muslims can know one another. And unity, which is fatal to enemy, can be achieved.”27

“To mend these defects it is necessary that Muslim people from Shia and Sunni community should come forward to form associations and programs where debates, discussions and teaching should take place. The light of Islam and Quran should be projected into depths of Muslim entity. We must know that Imamate is an important and fundamental issue. Muslims must discuss this subject since it is a cornerstone; because leadership is one of the pillars in Islam.”28

“If Muslims are acquainted with real and original face of Islam, all sects will come closer to one another – resulting in unity. Such a unity that comes into being on the basis of knowledge and learning shall be powerful and lasting. This unity can withstand foreign influences. Knowledge can be attained through classes and debating societies.”29

Ustad Ja’far Subhani in his analysis about the root of this type of tendency writes:

“Sometimes it is seen that simple-minded youths have a misunderstanding concerning unity which serves a good pretext in their hands. They try to criticize the truth-seekers. Their claim is that discussion about Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and Ali as to whose right it was, neither has a need nor is it fruitful…”30

Those who harbor such opinion have neglected the bright consequences of this discussion, and therefore they think that it is useless and a hurdle for Islamic unity. But in our opinion it is nothing but ignorance about philosophy of recognizing the Imam. It has no other root except in ‘Sunni obduracy’ or ‘Wahabi tendency’.

This objection can bear meaning only in the event our belief about Imamate or Caliphate in Islam is same as that of Sunni scholars. In other words, to consider it a worldly office or position when its function will be to guard Islamic frontiers and strengthen defenses. However, from Shia viewpoint Imamate is constancy of Message and continuation of divine bounty through the Prophet. Therefore, the discussion becomes not only necessary but obligatory about duties of Imam and it cannot be briefed in the foregone ones. He should expound and explain important divine regulations, the prohibited, the sanctioned; besides giving explanatory notes on Quranic data. Imam is the only source and oracle immediately after passing away of Prophet…

Here we see that intellectual succession of Prophet is something that demands a thorough discussion because the relative issue is alive and it takes to itself importance of utmost nature. It must be clarified that the Imam is Ummah’s leader in knowledge, principles, divine commandments and its branches. Such a station and position as that of Imam if not completely understood, will yield no required or desired result.

…So much so if we31 set aside the issue of Caliphate and overlook issue of leadership after the Prophet that goes to an infallible person; the issue that remains worth arguing is that of religion. Authority as to who it is or who must it be in matters of faith or religion after the Prophet’s passing away. This matter has an immediate bearing on prosperity and future of Muslims as a whole.”32

The Ustad proceeds:

“There are some groups among extremists who aspire very much to establish a united government all over Islamic territories. They have prohibited any speech or discourse over issues of difference. They consider it as the cause of difference. They have even gone farther because they treat it as a factor that takes us backwards to the ages of battles of Ottoman Caliphs and Sultans of Iran.33

We must point out to this group that the matter is not as hot as they consider. There are debates and discussions – one differs with other. There are discussions, which open the way to see facts. Such discussions are far from blind bigotry. They depend only on documents, which both parties consider authentic. Through such discussions alone is possible to illuminate the dark spots in Islam concerning belief, traditions and jurisprudence, etc. Does Quran not itself invite towards contemplation and consideration on its verses?

Groups that have prohibited discussion of issues (having differences) regard the writers of such matters as provokers and instigators. They must know as to what the consequences of such a theory of would be theirs. A great part of Quran, the Prophet’s traditions and Islamic history will vanish little by little into forgetfulness. No one will recall the events nor will lift the veil to see what has happened. Therefore, matters of great importance will thus be missed and lost.

How much better it would be if we dwell upon reformation instead of prohibiting this and that or assassination of thought. The writers should be reminded of existing chaos of Muslims. They should perform their job towards betterment of their position with utmost impartiality and neutrality. They should take care not to hurt feelings of others while they write on any of these critical issues. They should know that their writings will be judged on the Day of Judgment and it will constitute a part of the record of their deeds.

Briefly: Issues of belief that form the foundation of thought in every religion carry two views, which should be explained:

1- Unity cannot last long without knowing the branch matters or issues of difference. Unity founded on blind bigotry and without knowledge of branches will be feeble and shaky and of short duration.

2 – Our sons should be acquainted with this school by learning and reason because we are sure of the truth of this school – They must refrain from imitation in matters of belief. However, it becomes necessary that these issues must be studied and taught. It is obligatory that our school must be transferred to our successors. Otherwise all will go by the winds and in days to come nothing will remain.

Every type of argument if handled with the method mentioned in foregone pages it will neither be harmful nor create differences. Rather it will be good and useful for unity. If scholars of each sect explain these difference-bearing issues openly, honestly, and without any cheating, most accusations, misconceptions and misunderstandings will fade away. Only truth will remain as it is.

…We have witnessed in our life that any book if written through conscience and based on truth and Quran without any trick or malicious motive; has served in bringing two opposite groups closer. And the tree of integration has borne fruits at the earliest.

…Such a book has never produced any difference.34 It is remarkable to point out here that the work so far done in this respect is the effect of the cause. It is towards defending truth, logic and the reason of Shia sect about its belief, principles and branches of its regulations. If pretext of Islamic unity goes as far as overrunning Shia school then no truth, no reality would have survived. Nor honor and prestige remained for Shia.

The argument based on reason and sense with correct Islamic outlook, purged of bigotry and foul language cannot be objected or blamed. It brings closer the two disparate groups.”35

Therefore any discussion or argument cannot be restricted by some or other pretext or a superfluous excuse. Islamic unity generally has become an excuse only.

Allamah Al-Askari writes about this in his article:

“If in the past writing the sayings of the Prophet were prohibited under excuse of remembering Quran by heart. Today also the same is repeated under pretext of protecting Islamic unity. They want to close the door of learning and research. The policy is the same. However religion demands keeping the door of learning and research open.

Don’t argue! How strange it is! How dreadful and dangerous this sentence is. See the hurt and harm hidden therein. Is it not tantamount to say: Don’t go after knowledge? Do not speak about the conduct of the Prophet. In other words, do not learn these sciences. It is harmful what they are saying under pretext of religion that one should not hold any discussions!

Why at all should we give up argumentation and research? For the sake of Islamic unity? Whether all these differences among Muslims, in opinions, thoughts, religious commandments, will subside by just giving up argumentation? How should a discussion be given up when so many made-up traditions and altered history exists? In the face of so many controversies in Islamic belief, Prophet’s behavior, commandments of Quran and Islamic history that exist, argument should be set aside or it is the need of the day?

The fact is that arguments have become a persisting essentiality to invite debate or to publish reality for public scrutiny. After Infallible Imams, our (Shia) scholars have followed this path. They have sacrificed their life. They put themselves to danger and risk. However they did not give up disseminating true Islamic knowledge.”36

Invitation To Silence As Open-Mindedness

We are invited to keep quiet and historical research and analysis is banned. All this is done under the mask of open-mindedness. Likewise, this statement:

“So what for are present differences between Shia and Sunni? Does it concern election,37 which took place 1380 years ago? The scrutiny of the things is made such as to make it invalid or of no worldly advantage to you and me. Of course it is advantageous only in the next world when we die. It is so to say, if we carry the love of Ali in our hearts – whose right was usurped in Saqifah – after death we will enter heaven. While those who support the other candidates will go to Hell…”38At a single instance they have shown Shiaism in form of historical loves and hatreds…while it has a value for our life of today and tomorrow or an effect on our opinions.”!39

It seems such type of viewpoint is a reflection of a deviated outlook about Imamate.40 That Wilayat is being compared to rulership and all discussions about Imamate are confined to this environment.

It is expressed that:

“Usurping the Caliphate immediately after passing away of Prophet that took place in such a way is an obvious and an open tyranny and atrocity against reality and truth. A person who was the self and shadow of the Prophet was deprived of power and office of administration. As a result, Islam was deprived of the bounty of such a person. However, whatever it was; did happen. To recover the right to whomever it concerns is impossible. To talk about it is now a hue and cry.”41

In their camp Caliphate is regarded only a worldly office, that is an executive of an administration. In other school, it is seen through quite a different angle, which is:

“They only consider Imamate to be in sense of leadership of society. They say that the Prophet had installed Ali to succeed him for leadership and guidance. And Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman came inopportune.”

Shias are of the same caliber and there are two other issues also. [Absolute religious point of reference and total divine Guardianship]. Either they have no belief in this or they are silent in this regard. There are also those who acknowledge the second stage. However they have not reached the third.”42

Ustad Ja’far Subhani replies:

“The issue of Imamate or leadership of Muslims depends on the nature of argument. If the argument is framed: Who occupied the social and political office of Imamate and administered after the Prophet? This becomes a historical question. After fourteen centuries, it would not interest the youth of present generation. Besides, it has nothing to teach or provide any useful information. To know that person was a matter of necessity in its age. The passage of time has made this issue lose dignity and importance.

If the trend of argument is changed, the issue will take the real entity to itself. In this issue, there are two things. The political and social leadership of Islamic society after Prophet and besides this there is another thing, which is authority in religion, its principles and its branches. The question is who it is to administer this school after Prophet? Who are and must be those to show or explain to the masses God’s commandments – what is allowed and what not and so forth. They must be of such a caliber that their word and actions must stand an authority, an absolute – unshakeable and unalterable one until the last Day. What they said and what they did must serve as a model to man. Therefore from this stage the argument bears sense and carries weight. It becomes needful to know the personage and personality of the Imam. The nature of this issue is such that it becomes a part of life. As such, nobody can ignore or overlook it. To know the Imam as to who and what he should be becomes obligatory because it is a part of religion.”43

“In Shia view the Imam holds the office, which is continuity of message and extension of Prophethood. A matter of such an import should not be argued. It is an issue full of life. It is obligatory to know this station of Imam. Otherwise it will remain inconclusive…”44

Invitation To Keep Quiet As Mark Of Sympathy

There is another suspect in the margin of this very tendency, which makes silence obligatory. That is:

“Occupation in differences has kept the youth from reaching truth and basic principles of Islam. The spirit of faith is taken away from the people leaving them with the name of religion only.45

Ustad Mutahhari writes while describing this type of outlook:

“The present generation of our current age is fed up of faith and less interested in Islam as a result of discussion about Caliphate, Imamate and unpleasant events that took place and its repetition. They are already suffering by spiritual chaos.

Such discussions could have had desired consequences in the past. They could even have diverted attention from one branch to another. However in present times bringing it back to memory weakens thoughts with regard to structure and its root. We see in other schools they always try to hide the ugly part of their history. But on the contrary, we Muslims try to keep it alive on narration and rather magnify it more than its actual bulk.

We cannot concur with the above opinion.

We do acknowledge that criticism of history if it be narration alone or a reflection of events, the effect that will be exercised will be same as above. If the glorious side of history should be sketched and ugly or shameful part of it overlooked, it will be deviation of history rather than criticism or analysis. Supposing if it were customary to forget, neglect or avoid disgraceful and ugly parts of history, what its aftermath will be with regard to issues that concern the very gist of Islam. What will be the fate of the issue relating to leadership of Islamic society? To ignore such an issue tantamount to ignoring the prosperity of Muslims. Besides, if the rights of some persons had been trespassed or taken away by force and those persons happened to be of dignity and decorum; what will be the case if historical facts are overlooked? It will be nothing but called verbal and written support of oppression.”46

Invitation To Keep Quiet For Confidentiality

Invitation towards silence on part of unity-seekers and their insistence to avoid arguments that create differences is continuation of their same thoughts with same aim but in a different form. We can see this if we are mindful of the extent of its influence.

This change is a tricky one. It invites to not argue issues that create differences, particularly Saqifah and attack on the house where divine revelation descended, confiscation of Fadak and martyrdom of Zahra. This time their pretext is quite different and charming too; that is secrets should not be disclosed or made public.47 Where would this end? In a long run its end will be deviation and denial of realities, which will be totally forgotten because of no argument whatsoever about it.

Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi writes in this respect:

“Secrets of the Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt were of two categories: one: They themselves were insistent to not disclose them. They revealed them only to their close companions. Generally everyone had neither capacity nor ability to accept or bear them.

The second category consists of secrets by necessity of dissimulation and conditions of time and place. However it was not throughout history.

As such, the season for keeping secret has already passed. Therefore ignorance about those realities will entail deprivation of bounties and benefits of true religion. Zahra herself has pointed out in her address to chiefs of Migrants and Helpers the mandate that rests upon their lot to convey realities to coming generations and make them aware of truth.”48

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, (1st Edition 1381) Vol. 2, Pg. 29.

- 2. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 135.

- 3. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 305.

- 4. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article: ‘Unity in Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pg. 127.

- 5. Ibid. ‘Unity in Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 138.

- 6. Ibid. ‘Unity in Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 144.

- 7. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, 29th Khordad 1379.

- 8. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pg. 63-64.

- 9. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 11.

- 10. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat (Message of Unity), Pg. 274.

- 11. Ali Iraqchi Hamadani: Sad Dars az Bahas-e-Imamat (A Hundred Lessons on Imamate), Pgs. 9&12.

- 12. Ibid. Pgs. 12-13.

- 13. Ibid. Pg. 14.

- 14. Ibid. Pg. 15.

- 15. Ibid. Pgs. 15-16.

- 16. Ibid. Pg. 18.

- 17. Ibid. Pg. 18.

- 18. Ibid. Pg. 19.

- 19. Ibid. Pgs. 20-21.

- 20. Quoted from same source Pg. 21.

- 21. Ibid. Pgs. 22-23.

- 22. Ibid. Pg. 22.

- 23. Ibid. Pg. 24.

- 24. Ibid. Pgs. 27-28.

- 25. Ibid. Pgs. 26-27.

- 26. Ibid. Pg. 29.

- 27. Ibid. Pg. 28.

- 28. Ibid. Pgs. 31-32.

- 29. Ibid. Pg. 32.

- 30. More will be said about this objection.

- 31. It is not as a belief but continuity of the discussion.

- 32. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pgs. 12-14.

- 33. In the Safavid period.

- 34. Reference to Fatwa of Shaykh Shaltoot that permits following Shia Imamiyah School.

- 35. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pgs. 8-16.

- 36. Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Hamasa-e-Ghadeer (Collected Articles), Pgs. 506-507.

- 37. Election here means the meeting of Saqifah Bani Saada and other candidates means Caliphs. As if it was based on election and it made a mistake only in selecting a befitting individual.

- 38. Regarding the exalted position of correct belief in Imamate and its effect in gaining success and happiness in the next world refer to the book: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge) by Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi (Pg. 131-161).

- 39. Dr. Ali Shariati: History and Study of Religions (Collected Writings 15) Vol. 2, Pg. 26-27.

- 40. Refer: Ali Labbaf, A Victim Lost in Saqifah Vol. 4, Section 2.

- 41. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 141.

- 42. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 57.

- 43. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat, Pgs. 7-8.

- 44. Ibid. Pg. 13.

- 45. Abdul Kareem Bi-Azaar Shirazi: Islam Aaine Hambastigi (Islam, the Constitution of Solidarity), Pg. 13.

- 46. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari, Pgs. 13-16.

- 47. Refer: Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily 10th Bahman 1379.

- 48. Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi: Haqeeqat-e-Sookhte (The Burnt Fact), (Critical Essays on Wahdat-e-Islami by Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani.) Pgs. 63-64.

Discourse 2: Adopt Common Things And Ignore Differences Between Islamic Sects

Introduction

One wrong conception formed by the term ‘Islamic unity’ is to accept what is common among Islamic faiths and leave the points of differences.

Within the folds of this conception lies a point, which must not be ignored. It is commonly used to block the way that raises issues of Shia belief.

In this method, we come across the same idea that necessitates silence. It invites discourse only in matters of common beliefs. Discussion is very much encouraged from this outlook. However the case is not the same with regard to subject of Imamate. Therefore under pretext of Islamic unity, the most fundamental issue particular to Shia school, which is belief in Imamate, goes into oblivion.

It is thus declared:

“All our efforts are towards this: Religions must wipe out past from their mentalities. Discussion should take place within framework of logic and reason including the most sensitive issue we have, i.e. Caliphate and Imamate…

In this said ground, discussion is possible away from sympathy with reason. The aim must not be to remove differences, but rather to control differences and create mutual understanding between two sides. Both sides should be brought home to the effect that presently these discussions do not cater to the need of Muslims. On the contrary, they do more harm than good.”!1

Criticism And Analysis

Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari writes concerning the erroneous results of Islamic Unity:

“The second fault is: by raising these issues what would be the status of Islamic unity? The thing that befell Muslims was that their glory was snatched away from them. They were belittled and brought under domination of other non-Muslim nations. Imperialism, new or old, utilizes this tool towards igniting old differences. This has served as a good tool all over Islamic countries without exception. For imperialism is, in the name of religion, showing sympathy for Islam but aiming to enlarge the gulf and deepen rancor among Muslims themselves. Does it not suffice whatever we have suffered and endured through this way? Should we go on again? Will not raising such designs result in helping the aims of Imperialism?

The answer is: Unity and co-ordination forms the most essential need of Muslims. However, the old rankling rancor is mother-pain of Muslims; now it is contagion in the world of Islam. The enemy too benefits from it always.

It seems that the accuser has mistaken the sense of Islamic unity.

Islamic sects must overlook principles of their respective beliefs for the sake of unity. This was not the conception of Islamic unity among clerics and scholars of faith and open-mindedness a century ago. In other words, it means to accept joint material of belief among sects and to set aside the very particulars of their own belief. Such a thing is neither reasonable nor practicable. How is it possible to ask followers of a faith to ignore or give up certain principles, which are in belief or practice, in his view constitutes a part of text of Islam? That is for the sake of unity of Islam and Muslims he should turn a blind eye at a portion from the whole of Islam in the name of Islam?

There are several other ways to make people committed to a religious principle. The most natural one is reason and logic. People cannot be made faithful by means of request or in the name of interests nor can they be stripped of faith.

We ourselves are Shia. We are proud to be followers of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. We do not consider a least thing, whether be it an appreciable or undesired, worthy of transaction against interests. We do not entertain any request from any in this regard. Likewise, we do not expect from others also to give up a principle among principles of their belief for sake of Islamic unity. To accept common elements of belief and to repudiate particulars of a sect is a kind of transgression on absolute consensus.2 Moreover, it is not a true Islamic product. In any case, particulars of any sect among sects of Islam are parts of Islamic text. There cannot be Islam if it happens to be devoid of these distinctions and specifications. In usual terms, it is a difference in one party and in one single front.

Unity of a party demands that all individuals be at equity with regard to ideology, thought, way and vogue with the exception of personal matters.

Nevertheless, unity of a front means something different. All parties and groups, no matter however different in their taste, ideology, customs and norms must stand in one row against their common enemy because of combined elements common among them. It is obvious that arranging a row against enemy does not contradict with defending objectives and criticizing objectives of other brothers or inviting to their own objectives by associates of the same front. However, inviting to or supporting Islamic unity cannot bar the truth. Things that provoke bigotry or old rancor must not take place. Scientific discussion has an immediate bearing on reason and not on sympathy and feelings.”3

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 120.

- 2. A new statement different from the one having consensus (Refer: Lughta Name Dahe Khuda, Vol. 26, Pg. 450).

- 3. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari, Pgs. 16-19.

Discourse 3: To Make Difference Between Two Schools So Light As To Appear Depthless

Introduction

This is one of the ideas since the beginning of unity in question, which still can be seen in a scattered thought. It is to show differences between school of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) and that of Caliphs at a very low level.

If difference between beliefs of two schools be wider and deeper, to bring followers of these schools closer becomes very difficult. Therefore, it is in the interest of unity-seekers to display this gulf of difference as too narrow as far as their claim is concerned.

If we appoint one as a neutral judge and assign him to study beliefs of both schools and then give his judgment or opinion. Without doubt, his reply will be that differences in beliefs of Shia and Sunnis are much wider and deeper than what claimers of Islamic Unity pretend.

Although topics of the subjects of discussion between two beliefs are common, its contents differ very much. To depend on common topics would produce only fictitious unity. Because the following discussions that are publicized have the same titles but have a vast difference between them.

Just take a look at the books:

Be With the Truthful Ones, Ask Those who Know and other work of Dr. Muhammad Tejani. He has written these books after having had been guided to Shia School. This will rightly prove what we have stated above.

Tendency towards unity, in any case, is bereft of originality and truth. It might be having strength and salubrity in its early stage. Even then it is said:

“We find out at a careful scrutiny that around eighty five or ninety percent of matters concerning belief, jurisprudence and moral are common among all faiths. Therefore we must persist on these common principles with adherence, since they result in unity of Muslims.”1

“The fact is that schools are having common principles.”!2

“Islamic sects are common in jurisprudence, principle, speech, conduct, tradition and Islamic culture.”!3

“Principle and approximately total absolute beliefs are common and final among schools. The branch issues mostly are causes of difference because each aims at a particular view.”!4

“…followers of schools since the second century have a record. They have jurisprudence and speech. They are bound to a divine legislation. They do not differ from one another as far as principle is concerned. They differ only in branch issues.”!5

“We Muslims also have the same story. All have one God, one Prophet, one Book and one prayer direction. Other mandates such as prayers, fasting, Hajj and so forth run the same in all sects. Since we have no knowledge of others we become the butt of wrong allegations about one another.”!6

“One thousand three hundred and ninety odd years have elapsed since the initial call of Islam. Six hundred and fifty million Muslims exist among three milliard people over this globe. Although elements of difference in belief have separated them from one another, yet we do not see any basic difference in faith or religion among them. A Chinese Muslim, an Indonesian one, or a Muslim from Tatar or an Arab or an Irani – all are together under a belt of one faith and one religion.”!7

“If Sunnis get acquainted with their Shia brothers and likewise Shias with their Sunni brothers, it will dawn upon them that the difference between them is not a basic one. The conjecture that exists in one’s mentality regarding the other is nothing but a product of false
assumptions.”!8

“Islamic legislation is not a product of any fanciful imagination. It stands on a fixed principle. There does not exist any Muslim from any sect of Islam who might differ with another Muslim. If there is a difference, it is in the branch of the principle not in the very principle itself…”!9

“Those who are in agreement with regard to God, religion, Prophet, prayer direction and Quran, which are foundation stones of faith, must be mindful of principle that is the pillar of their own faith. They should regard it as an unshakable factor of unity, solidarity and integration.”!10

Dissemination of such foul and fake thoughts in the first place will harm and hit the body of Shiaism and the base of its belief. Consequently, the original and real face of this school will fade into oblivion.

In this way the monopoly of guidance that lies in following Ahlul Bayt of infallibility and purity (‘a) will be defeated and the most important pillar of Shia school will be demolished.

Today we ignore Imamate of Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet while we dwell on belief of two schools. This we do to protect or seek unity. It is quite clear where we will end. The propagation of such thoughts will carry us to an undesired and unwanted wilderness.11

As for Imamate and its position in Islam, we would like to dwell upon it since it has been criticized.

We refer here to views of scholars who themselves are fast pro-Islamic unity in its true sense.

One will realize, after a scrutiny of this analysis, that Imamate is a great difference between two schools. This difference has become a cause for differences in all discussions of belief entailing there to difference between teachings of two schools.

A school that believes in Imamate of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt will naturally grasp all elements and factors of belief and its data or literature from them – the infallible one. Similarly, a school which has no belief in their Imamate has nothing to do with them. To gain Islamic information the school will refer to sources other than them.

Difference in belief in Imamate itself can be like a lighthouse that guides the way in dreadful oceans. In all subjects such as conduct, jurisprudence and belief between the School of Caliphs and that of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) through the scale of Imamate, truth and facts can well be sketched.

Criticism And Analysis

Shias believe:

“Imamate is a principle that gives a special distinction to Imamiyah sect. This sect is distinguished from all other sects of Muslims for this very reason. This difference has made Shiaism prominent among the rest of sects.”12

In this regard, Ustad Mutahhari writes:

“The issue of Imamate is too important to us, Shias. Nevertheless, to other sects of Islam it is not so important. The sense Shias draws from Imamate varies with that which other sects draw. This is the reason.13 Indeed, there are some dimensions common to both schools. Nevertheless, there is a certain dimension particular to Shia belief. This particularity of issue of Imamate makes it an element of top priority to Shias.

When we Shias want to mention principles of faith we say: Monotheism, Prophethood, Justice, Imamate and Day of Judgment.

We regard Imamate a part of religion. The Sunnis also acknowledge something of a sort of Imamate. They do not basically deny Imamate, but Imamate they acknowledge is something else in a different form.

Moreover, that form, according to them, is not a part of religion. It is only a branch factor of faith. However, we have difference in this issue of Imamate. For the Sunni sect Imamate is one thing else while to Shias something else. How it is that Imamate stands as a part of principle for Shia sect while it is a branch to Sunnis? The reason runs the same as referred to. In Shia sect, it is quite different from what it is with the Sunnis.”14

“If the issue of Imamate could have ended at the frontier of political leadership of society after Prophet we too would have shifted it to branches of faith and never elevated it to grade of principle. Shias acknowledge Imamate and do not stand on that extent nor do they suffice at that. Ali was one of the Prophet’s associates. Others were too – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Salman and Abu Dharr. Ali was superior to all, above all, more in knowledge, in piety, in eligibility.15 The Prophet had already nominated him. Shias do not stop at this. They argue two other issues. The Sunni sect never acknowledges anyone as far as these two issues are concerned. It is not that they accept these couple of issues and reject Ali to be attributed with them.

One: Imamate in a sense of final and absolute religious authority to be referred to. The Prophet was the conveyor of divine Revelation. People used to refer to him when they stood in need of knowledge about any aspect of Islam. They used to inquire from the Prophet what they could not or did not find in Quran. Here is a point worth considering. The commandment, legislations, the data that Islam wanted to convey, is it all same as mentioned in Quran and told by the Prophet? This is not the case. Time did not allow the Prophet to convey everything to the people. Ali was the Prophet’s successor. The Prophet conveyed to Ali all that ought to be said and conveyed. He taught Ali to the extent to make him his like. He molded Ali into an extraordinary scholar. He made him by his teachings such as not to make mistake in his sayings and to not say what is not from God. Therefore, the Prophet introduced Ali and declared:

O, People! Whatever religious issues you want to know, when I am no more, you ask my successor and successors.

As a matter of fact, here Imamate becomes something like an expertise of Islam. Expertise from the divine side; and the Imams means those who know Islam and are experts therein. In other words, they are persons who have attained all sciences of Islam from the Prophet. The method they learnt from the Prophet is so concealed, unseen and a secret one that it is unknown to us. Islamic knowledge was first transferred from the Prophet to Ali. And from Ali it sought the bosoms of subsequent Imams one after the other. As such in all periods of the Imams, Islamic knowledge or source was one and the same – infallible, without any deviation or error.”16

“In Imamate in the first place is the issue of succession to the Prophet.17 This naturally entails the office of explanation of faith or religion excluding revelation. It was the person of the Prophet to whom revelation used to descend. Message and revelation ended after Prophet’s passing away. The content or gist of Imamate runs thus: Divine instructions or teachings are such that none can insert therein his personal opinion nor can he build up on his own taste. These instructions and teachings were vested in the person of the Prophet. People were convinced that whatever of religious problems they ask; the answer is true as they used to receive from the Prophet. They knew that the answer was not based on personal opinion of the Prophet. Therefore there was not at all possibility of any error or mistake. Therefore the teachings remain the same without any change, addition or reduction. It never happened that the instructions might have been amended or corrected on the next day because the previous day the Prophet had forgotten to tell something or told erroneously. Indeed we do not say such a thing about the person of the Prophet. We told this by way of explanation. The Prophet passed away. The question that arises is: Whether after the Prophet there existed a person like him to perform the office of absolute point of reference to comment, explain and expound divine religious commandments? Indeed, there did exist one to take over this office and perform the duty the Prophet used to discharge. But there is only one difference. What the Prophet conveyed and expounded, his source was Divine Revelation. And when the Imam or Imams discharged the same job, their source was the Prophet himself. The Prophet was based on revelation and the Imams, on the Prophet. The Prophet taught them. How the Prophet did so we cannot understand. A glimpse of it appears in the words of Imam Ali (‘a) when he says: ‘The Prophet opened a door of knowledge to me. At the opening of that door one thousand doors got opened.’ We cannot explain how the Prophet received knowledge from God nor can we understand the type of spiritual relation between Prophet and Ali. The Prophet taught the facts only to Ali and not to others.”18

“Islam is a wholesome, consummate and magnificent religion and Imamate is its spirit. How can we say whether it reaches the extent Quran narrates about its principle and perfection? Or to the extent of the Prophet’s words while explaining it and which the Sunnis too have referred? Whatever was Islam, whether is it the same? Indeed, the call of Islam was completed to the Prophet. However, the question is whether Islam was wholly conveyed? Is there not such a probability that Islam might have descended after the Prophet? As such, there could be many issues, which were not told because of lack of need or lack of demand of time. They might have been held in reserve to be told at a proper time. Therefore, the stock of such issues could have been in the custody of knowledge of Ali. And Ali should have been supposed to convey to the masses.”19

“The Sunni sect does not acknowledge such a position to any. They do not accept such a type of Imamate at all nor do they accept existence of Imam. It is not such that they refuse Ali as an Imam and accept Abu Bakr instead. No. They do not accept the office of Imam. Sunnis refuse such a status to all – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions of Prophet.

The theme of the argument runs in this sense that revelation descended on the person of the Prophet only and nobody else. We too do not say that revelation descended on Imams. It was the Prophet who conveyed Islam to humanity. God told the Prophet what He wanted to be told of Islam. There is nothing either partly or little or more that remains untold. Sunnis further go to say that whatever the Prophet said, constitutes Islam.

There are issues about which the Prophet has not spoken even to his companions. About such issues, they (Sunnis) are confused and entangled in a puzzle. A thing not spoken is a quandary to them. They depend on precedent. They judge or decide upon comparing a similar case if it occurred in the past. Imam Ali (‘a) has criticized this practice of comparison. In Nahjul Balagha, he says that such a practice means that God has sent an incomplete religion that you have to substitute by the system of comparison. Shia logic is: Whatever God revealed to the Prophet was full and complete. He did not keep anything short. The Prophet too conveyed the same in the same measure to the people. He too did not keep anything less or short. Besides delivering the message to the people he told all the commandments and instructions to his special pupil and enjoined him to convey it to the people.”20

“It is here that we differentiate the duty of Shias and Sunnis in matter of explaining and understanding religion.”21

In accordance with this fundamental Shia belief in Imamate, Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi has written:

“We differ with them in all things – in principle of religion and in its branches as well, that is right from monotheism down to the branches.

In two issues we have a deep and salient difference with Sunni sect. One runs in principles of religion and the other in its branches. As far as principles of faith are concerned our difference is in Imamate, which is a fundamental item to us.

We believe that Imamate holds in its fold foundation of all religious recognition and information. Therefore the difference with Sunni sect is that of sky from earth. We deem that belief in monotheism, prophethood and Day of Judgment will be of no avail if there is no belief in Imamate.

In other words, Imamate is a pillar and foundation of religion. If this item be deleted, our faith will be incomplete and our religious bases will be in want and will result in no good to us. Without Imamate, branches of faith will be wrong and principles will be of no worth; neither will its recognition be of any value.”22

“Sunnis claim that Imamate has no role in faith; and that Ali too had no part in religious issues.

Faith consists of monotheism, prophethood and Resurrection day.

This is what the Prophet introduced to humankind. Finally, the matters are vested to the Ummah. The aspect of government is upto the Ummah to decide or to handle as deems fit.

They consider Imamate as rulership and social leadership, which the people themselves can manage or run.

Thus Ali has no role in Faith. This belief stands quite opposite to our point of belief.

We say that Ali has the real and main role in Faith. The message of prophethood depends on Ali’s Imamate. Had there not been Imamate of Ali, the message would not have progressed.

As such, distance between them and us is to the extent of the sky from the earth.

We say that without Ali, Islam would be no more. They say Islam exists without Ali also.

What is a shell to its kernel such is the relation of Ali with Islam. Islam loses its spirit if there not be Ali. But they say the opposite; that is Islam exists with its spirit without Ali. So the gulf between us and them is too wide and large.”23

Even though for the sake of creating unity it may be claimed:

“To know the Imam is not a subject but it is an adherence. It is the way to get acquainted with religious commandments. It is not like belief in God and resurrection so as to be subjective.24

Deviation In Principles And Branches Of Faith

Introduction

As we all know, one of the aims of unity of Islam is to avoid clashes, disputes, wars and bloodshed between Muslims.

Every Muslim is safe under Islamic civil regulations according to Islamic legislation. Life and property of a Muslim comes at the top of this civil law. On the other hand, differences in belief have been ground for destroying sanctity of one’s life and property throughout history. Proponents of Islamic unity desire to have a word about sectarian differences among Muslims. Their end is that these differences may not hurt individuals because of their being Muslims. As a result, any excuse for any kind of separation among Muslims could be repudiated. Therefore, they usually say:

“…all of them (Muslims) are together in basic beliefs. In other words, beliefs which have bearing on one’s being a Muslim. The difference that lies in certain matters is not to the extent to deny one’s being a Muslim, but it is an adherence to a particular faith.”!25

“What we mean is that unity or proximity with one another should push Islamic faiths to be together on those conditions that are subject to being a Muslim. All are Muslims. The difference among them is not a fundamental one. It is a marginal one which does not rescind one’s Islam.”!26

“Issues of difference existing in between are not of a category that could qualify one to blame the other of infidelity. The difference lies outside the principle and foundation. Therefore it is not a reason to say that these faiths have fundamental differences with each other.”!27

“In this way they should seek real truth, fact and knowledge. As far as they can, they should settle their disputes by reason and proof. Thus they can reach mutual agreement on any issues of difference. What good it would yield to reserve for himself what he likes and to be a cause of dread for others? On the other hand difference in branches is not harmful nor does it push them out of the circle of Islam.”!28

Criticism And Analysis

Declarations such as these towards gaining political unity are acceptable. Perhaps they may prove strong enough to achieve the aim. However in view of the highly exalted station of Imamate in Islam and Shia belief, they are bereft of originality and sincerity of thought.

We rather make divisions between teachings of Islam and principles of Islam and religion instead of maintaining Islamic principles and religious fundamentals. This is the important point overlooked that results in this outlook. The negligence is: We do not distinguish between worldly jurisprudence and fate of human beings in the next world.

Against the above division, unity-seekers have erroneously divided the principle (the common belief) and branches (the belief on personal make out) into two batches:

1 – The basic faith: i.e. common among all sects. It constitutes the basic principle of Islam. This gives the identity of being a Muslim.

2 – Branches of faith: i.e. beliefs particular to its relative faiths or sects. They are independent from fundamentals of Islam. They have no bearing on limits of Islam.29

Hence it is said:

“Principles means pillars on which rests the entity of a Muslim. If one rejects all of them or a part of it, he is no more a Muslim.”!30

“Branches are same issues that revert to the principle irrespective of views.”!31

“The meaning of branches is not only the side commandments, but it also means issues stretched out of the basic principle in both dimensions prior and after the commands and beliefs. In beliefs too we have a principle and a branch.”!32

Here rises a question: When we can attain the goal without injuring the quality of thought and attain knowledge of all beliefs by personal conclusion why should we stick to unpleasant ideas or thoughts? Besides, according to real teachings of religion in this respect, which is agreeable to both sects, political unity too can be attained.33 Descriptions about principles of faith and its standards; we make appear as brief knowledge is sufficient because principle is a scale agreed by all sects. As such, Islamic sects have no difference at all in principles and fundamentals of faith. Their religious differences, considering these narrations, consist of beliefs as a whole except common subjects related to branches!

It is thus said:

“Data mentioned in Quran and traditions; that is the principles Muslims had accepted and in the time of the Prophet too all Muslims were in agreement.”!34

“By the common sum of principle we mean final principle of Islam acceptable to all Muslims. They are proved and established by Quran and traditions which Muslims have necessarily accepted.”!35

“In this respect also we must go after deed36 of a category, a necessity of Islam and which are acknowledged by all faiths as an obligatory mandate in Quran and traditions. As in principles of belief, here too standard of acceptance of these actions is agreement of all upon it.”!37

“Muslim unity rests on the pivot of basic Islamic principles and all Muslims agree upon it.”38

“The difference of Muslims does not lie in issues of jurisprudence alone. It runs partly in side beliefs too. Besides, it also exists in common principles.”!39

Because of this narrow-mindedness, like the Muslims are excused in their differences about contents of common subjects they are also excused about belief in Imamate!40

Rather it is said that their faith will not be harmed because of not having such beliefs.41

Whether a claim like this:

“A brief knowledge about principles and belief in it to the extent of common understanding is sufficient. Not in sense of comprehension that embraces principles in detail. It suffices to form a standard of being a Muslim and a ground for Islamic unity. Belief in this principle runs to the extent of a common understanding to all.”!42

Is there something that goes beyond testimony of oneness of God and prophethood?

The above element creates confusion. Beyond necessary knowledge of principles which is a combination of subjects and general comprehension all arguments are side and branch ones. As a result they rest on personal conclusions! Therefore:

“Muslims in matter of branches should allow each other to have different beliefs.”43

Now according to faith one who gives testimony of God being one (i.e. monotheism) and prophethood, is a Muslim. And he is obliged to obey the commandments of Islam and enjoy the rights thereby.

As such, there is no need for a Muslim to know followers of all Islamic faiths and to claim wrongly:

“Justice and Imamate are principles of faith not principles of religion. Why they say so? Because Shias considers them Muslims who do not believe in this issue. Yes, they are Muslims though they may not believe in the said issue.”44

Because to consider followers of other Islamic sects Muslims has a root in fundamentals of other than Ja’fari (Shia) jurisprudence.

Conclusion

On this base:
“Principles of faith are elements that constitute a faith. Principles of faith in Islam are of two categories. One is the same, which entitles one to be called a Muslim according to issues45of jurisprudence46 that is: testimony of God’s unity and prophethood.47

The other is salvation in the next world from divine punishment and resurrection to attain God’s pleasure and entrance in heaven. This depends upon that alone. Entering heaven is subject to acknowledgement of that principle. Otherwise heaven is prohibited. He who does not believe in this principle is regarded as infidel and thrown into hell. This part of principle is called principle of faith48 that is to believe in Imamate and to accept the Imam.”49

Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin has dealt with this issue in two chapters in his book Al-Fusool al-Muhimma Fi Taleef al-Ummah. According to him, sanctity of being a Muslim is preserved and protected by rights of Islam by uttering two testimonies. This is agreed upon by Shias and Sunnis.

He in the same way writes in the third chapter that: A great part in this regard is narrated by Sunni sect to the effect that whoever says: There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Prophet of God is a Muslim and his life and property is entitled to respect and regard. We shall evaluate it.

He further writes below the subsequent chapter: We shall dwell on a few traditions of Infallible Imams who have given sanction of Islam, i.e. of being Muslims, to Sunnis. They have regarded Sunnis in all respects entitled to rights50 that a Muslim enjoys like Shias.”51

“Authority of jurisprudence and faith, the Second Martyr (Shaheed Thani) says after arguing about the reality of faith: From the data above you know that acknowledgement of Imamate of Imams forms a principle of faith in Imamiyah sect and a necessity of their religion. A thing if it be a part of another thing will vanish at disappearance of its origin or main source. There is no doubt about it. It is same as the matter in question. Accordingly, decree becomes necessary to declare one an infidel if he be not at home with the testimony of Imamate although he might have uttered the two testimonies. Some have said this decree varies with what you say: Who admits the two testimonies is a Muslim not infidel. The answer is there is no difference between the two decrees. We issue a decree that whoever does not admit the said testimonies is an infidel in the sense of the gist itself and a Muslim outwardly. As such, these two decrees on this subject are different but there is no negation in it.

He further says: Outwardly, a Muslim means that most religious commitments take shape thereat. Consequently, the Messenger of Allah (S) has fixed two testimonies as ground to carry out religious obligations or mandates on the person who confesses.

The chief of jurisprudents and researchers, Shaykh Muhammad Hasan author of al-Jawahir says: Perhaps the numerous narratives that have come regarding infidelity of denier of Ali and denier of Imam are in the sense of absolute infidelity against faith...”52

As observed in religious teachings, we do not have divisions by name of principles of faith and principles of religion or basic principles and branches of faith. Principles of religion are of two kinds. Principles of Islam that is to pronounce two testimonies and its acknowledgements, the other is principles of Faith that is to have correct beliefs. Therefore, it is distinguished as religious recognition.

Conclusion

What are principles of religion and how they are specified and fixed, is in itself a debate. And what kind of denial it is with regard to principles that results in exit from jurisprudential obligations leaving only an outward appearance of Islam in this world? This constitutes another debate that the standards that fix principles of religion have no part. It enjoys special calculations particular to itself. In other words, conditions and standards of exit from the borders of being a Muslim and from the circle of outer Islam has no bearing on the main or branches of argument of Imamate in Islam.

Therefore from religious viewpoint belief such as Imamate can be a principle and a cornerstone of Islam as well. But an open denial of it based on any interests could cause exit from borders of being a Muslim in this world.

It is never allowed to create a new description for principles and branches of religion and belief and introduce self-made standards for religious base wherein the station of Imamate is shifted to a lower grade; all this for sake of preserving the outcome of fake and feeble facade of Islam.

Therefore in accordance with sagacious religious decree an open denial of Imamate and Wilayat of infallible Imams will not qualify one to be discarded as a Muslim had he adhered to testimony of oneness of God and the testimony of prophethood.

Although Imamate is the basic element of faith yet the testimony of monotheism and prophethood holds one from going out of the circle of Islam53 unless he has enmity to Infallible Imams or he denies both testimonies, i.e. monotheism and prophethood.

Therefore it does not befit necessary to consider contents of belief in field of monotheism, prophethood and resurrection as branches. As a result, contents could be considered as personal conclusion and wrong beliefs of Sunni sect could be justified.54 It is not necessary to discard Imamate from category of principles of religion and make it a branch discussion.55

Reminder

“Ayatullah Kashiful Ghita says with regard to Imamate, which is the only basic cardinal difference between Shia and Sunni sects: 56 Shias regard Imamate a principle among principles of religion at the level of monotheism and prophethood. Further, their belief goes to extent that Imamate too, like prophethood is choice of God. Imam is chosen and appointed by God and Prophet. Ummah has no choice in appointment of a prophet and it is out of its reach and choice.

But our Sunni brothers do not treat this issue as a principle of religion. They have lowered and downgraded it to a political issue that can be accommodated by consensus or election which has no bearing on principles or branches of faith.

Yet, inspite of that…

Do you find a Shia pronouncing infidelity of one who has no belief in Imamate? Never!...

On the basis of this:

Acknowledgement of Imamate or its denial has nothing to do with Islamic society and relative commandments. The blood and properties (of both sects) is respectable and liable to protection…”57

Deviated Side-Effects Of This Conjecture

First Wrong Result

As you may have realized some seekers of Islamic unity have divided followers of all Islamic sects into religious discussions irrespective of beliefs, commandments, principles and branches. They have done so for sake of preserving Muslim sanctity. They have displayed principles such as to comprise arguments – absolute and final ones and common and combined ones among Islamic faiths. It has been declared such:

“Root of religion means the established facts, strong realities, absolute decided elements and common issues of religion.”!58

“Principles are same comprehensive ones on which all Muslims have agreed.”!59

Consequently, branches were mentioned as matters that had become separated from this absolute principle, which were final and common and a sign of distinction of differences between Islamic faiths.

To say it more clearly: unity-seekers distinguish branches and separate them from principles on the ground that viewpoints differ in branches while in principles, viewpoint of all Muslims is coherent and consistent. It is thus said:

“Principles and sum of beliefs is nearly final and common among faiths. Mostly side and branch issues cause difference because each sect has its own view.”!60

“Matters subject to differences are side issues.”!61

On the other hand there exists no doubt at all that the prime issue of difference in Islamic Ummah is Imamate and Caliphate of Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. In this regard it is said:

“The issue of Imamate and Caliphate heads issues of differences among Muslims. Most differences – those of belief and jurisprudence, originate therefrom. None of these two fundamentals, Imamate and Caliphate, has had ever been a subject of common agreement between Muslims. In the era of the Prophet, it did not attain a level of serious consideration. In case it had been at that level it has lost importance by now.”!62

Therefore the thought of seeking unity has pushed this issue into side branch or at the margin because it creates difference among Muslims. As a result, it has been treated as a branch or side issue and as such it assumes particularities significant to subsidiary or subordinate matters. They are:

A – “Branch issues which often are a source of differences should not be set in the middle of Islamic fundamentals or principles nor should they be treated such as to befog main issues.”!63

B – “Muslims are at difference with one another only in little and branch issues. Such issues do not form the main spirit of Islam. In fact, they originate from wrong conclusions and various viewpoints of scholars or jurisprudents.”!64

C – “Side issues and non-principles are objects of differences which should be resolved by scientific methods and exchange of views. If they could not be solved, do not let them dominate your mind and create fresh disputes among you. Islam does not deny difference in views. But the difference is natural and it is not supported by proof or reasoning.”!65

Second Wrong Result

As could be gathered from preceding narrations, unity-seekers have brought belief in Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahlul Bayt down to a branch level. They have utilized the excuse of preserving unity in the Ummah. All arguments relating to faith under the title of principle or fundamental and essentialities of religion would have to face this basic objection to the effect that there exist differences between School of Infallible Ahlul Bayt and School of Caliphs. The differences are deep and rooted. Therefore founders of unity-seeking concept suggest a brief knowledge of these handy matters for solution of this problem. The extent, they say is enough that could provide information to people of common understanding.66 Besides, it must comprise branches. Consequently, the matter turns to rest at personal conclusion of a jurisprudential merit. They say:

“A brief knowledge of this fundamental belief at the level of common understanding suffices. A detailed knowledge of it is not desired.”!67

“Accordingly we must know and even acknowledge that most religious matters are of personal conclusion of jurisprudence. The matters of need or those of necessity are common ones. For example: God is attributed with attributes of perfection, beauty and glory. Quran too mentions it. But when details are dealt with, question too arises accordingly. For example, the attribute or quality – is it the very self or added thereto? Or intention (i.e. the will) as to whether it is a quality of an action or quality of self? This issue is in the range of jurisprudence. The laity cannot understand it totally. There is also no need for them to understand.”!68

As for this conjecture, all discussions under these fundamental beliefs that go beyond common borders in glittering titles do not comprise principles because of their being within category of subsidiary character. It can be said in more clear words:

As far as this outlook goes, all deviated and wrong beliefs of Islamic sects in the chapters of monotheism and prophethood and... encompassed by jurisprudence are beyond the circle of deviation and crookedness! And stand in need of justification!

Because all these beliefs are absolute and beyond common understanding!

Third Wrong Result

Division of religious arguments that have taken place in beliefs and commandments is to preserve Muslim sanctity.69 This causes exit of important arguments such as Imamate and Guardianship of Infallible Ahlul Bayt from category of prime matters of religion and become a subsidiary matter of less care. However it goes even farther, embracing issues, which were main ones in the sphere of branches.70

Consequently, wrong conception gives shape to shifting of issues from main to branch and from the foundation to a side, irrespective of beliefs or commandments. It is said that:

“Religious matters are in two categories. One is the final and decided one. The other one is not final. The final and decided matters are those, which must be as wholesome, of unanimous agreement of all Muslims. We have other matters in religion that are not of much transparency. Or they might have been previously. But by the passage of time, lost importance and became ground of difference between Muslims. All issues pertaining to belief, jurisprudence and practice are common between two sects (Shia and Sunni).71 But branches of it are the ground of difference. We shall deal what exists in the domain of jurisprudence; all issues are not final.”!72

“Jurisprudence has an immediate bearing on issues of theory. Its authority and validity runs in issues that are outside essentialities and final say of Islam…”!73

“If we accept that religion consists of two series of issues. One is final, which does not carry any difference because there cannot exist any difference in it. Difference in these matters will make one to be regarded a deserter of religion. The other series of this is not a part of final matters and absolute essentiality. This is among theoretical issues. This is liable to create difference and arguments. There are various proofs and grounds in it. The method to reach to knowledge in the subject matters of this series is same as already mentioned. All ways end at conclusions of jurisprudent. As such, we must know and acknowledge that there are many issues in religion that lie in domain of jurisprudence….”!74

Fourth Wrong Result

When religious issues (related to belief or jurisprudence) are divided into two categories, principles and branches, the branch issues yield to jurisprudents’ ruling. When this formula is accepted, it should also be accepted that each branch consists of its own peculiarities or special effects related to differences of rulings among jurisprudents. And they are:

1) This Difference Must Be Acknowledged

“Religious issues are divided into absolute and final ones on one hand and on the other in issues that are otherwise i.e. not final. Issues of the first category do not yield to differences. In other words, no difference can creep therein. But issues of second category are subjected to difference. In other words, they undergo differences. Sometimes, we have no way but to tolerate differences.”!75

“Differences in non-principle issues are tolerable within framework of reason and proof. This difference is harmless. It is to a certain extent unavoidable because every jurisprudent has his own opinion in matters of jurisprudence.”!76

2) This Difference In Religion Is Neither Rejected Nor Blamed

“There are issues perhaps never raised in early Islamic period, or if at all raised, they were limited and unclear. As centuries passed, clerics and scholars paid much care and attention to issues. Their findings brought in differences. Such differences are outcome of scholars’ research, therefore cannot be called differences. It cannot be blamed on either.”!77

3) This Difference Is Desirable And Useful

“Difference in any faith neither decays nor vanishes. So no saying goes about a difference when several faiths exist. It has a root in conclusions of jurisprudents. As many viewpoints as many differences. Islam acknowledges different thoughts or views; if thoughts be useful, so much better.”!78

4) This Difference Is Not Harmful, It Solves Difficulty

“There are many differences in Islamic faiths in fields of jurisprudence and speech. These differences originate from difference in views of jurisprudents and they do not contradict basic principles of Islam. Hence they do not carry any harm but they occasionally solve difficulties also.”!79

5) This Difference Is Good, There Is Nothing Wrong In It

“Efforts should be made to open door of jurisprudence in all faiths of Islam. Thus ruling of jurisprudents will be established by support of reason and proof in all aspects in branches as well as fundamental. The rulings can rescue matters from going under disputes and the Ummah going into disintegration. There remains only a difference in view which is not harmful but rather advantageous…”!80

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 151.

- 2. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring , Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 3. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 235.

- 4. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 270.

- 5. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring , Summer 80, Pg. 12.

- 6. Abdul Kareem Bi-Azaar Shirazi: Islam Aaine Hambastigi (Islam, the Constitution of Solidarity), Pg. 11.

- 7. Muhammad Moheet Tabatabai: Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi wa Beedaari-e-Mashriq-e-Zameen (Awakening of Eastern land), Pg. 168.

- 8. Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Qummi: Article quoted in Islam Aaine Hambastigi, Pg. 138.

- 9. Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article quoted in Islam Aaine Hambastigi, Pg. 103.

- 10. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article: ‘Wahdat Dar Nahjul Balagha’ (Unity in Nahjul Balagha) quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Book of Unity) Pg. 120.

- 11. Refer: Dr. Abdul Kareem Saroosh: ‘Civil & Religious Constitution’, Pgs. 169-182. From his speech delivered in Unity Conference, Tehran University, 1367.

- 12. Shaikh Muhammad Husayn Kashiful Ghita: Asl-e-Shia Wa Usoolaha (Fundamental of Shia and its principle), Pg. 107.

- 13. Sunnis do acknowledge leadership and Imamate in some cases. But the attributes of Imam are different from those of Shia belief. As for some conceptions of Imamate they altogether deny. It is not that they differ from Shias in qualities of Imam. The difference runs in the gist of Imamate besides the qualifications of the Imam. Imamate means (to them) leadership of a society. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 46-47.

- 14. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 45-46.
“As a matter of fact it should be said: Sunnis from the very base reject Imamate that exists in view of Shias. They do not question its conditions and its very core is subject to denial.” (Ibid.) Pgs. 117-118.

- 15. This much suffices: Negligence about appointment and divine text (Nass) has repercussions which we can also see today.

- 16. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership 50-52.

- 17. Of course after the subjects of Wilayat and Imamate.

- 18. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership 71-73.

- 19. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership Pg. 75.

- 20. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership Pgs. 52-54.

- 21. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership Pg. 76.
We shall dwell later in the subsequent chapters on the claim of those who separated from the school of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) under the pretext of their having an excuse. It will be useful in the course of discussion to remember the publicized sources.

- 22. Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi. Booklet: Guidance (Quoted portion from his speech on 21/11/79. Commentary of Verse 41, Surah Anfaal Pgs. 10-11).

- 23. Ibid. Pgs. 12-13.

- 24. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 176.

- 25. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 257.

- 26. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 258.

- 27. Shaikh Muhammad Taqi Qummi: quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 57.

- 28. Ibid. quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 56.

- 29. One of the wrong consequences of this is that Imamate is shifted to branches as we shall explain in coming pages.

- 30. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 31. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 32. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 33. That is the principles of Islam that shall be dealt in detail.

- 34. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 35. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 26.

- 36. Religious acts (Laws).

- 37. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Essay quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210.

- 38. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 235.
Of course, this question remains unanswered: How agreement among Muslims equals religions concurrence that has resulted in a standard to distinguish the principles and decide its absoluteness? What is a reason or a proof for it?!!

- 39. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 228.
This claim includes all matters of belief in which there are differences in side and common principles.

- 40. We shall deal in the following pages about the claim that the Ummah is excused in Usool (beliefs) and Furu (Laws).

- 41. Regarding the difference between Islam and (Imaan) Faith, please refer to the book, Marefat-e-Imam-e-Asr (a.t.f.s.), (Knowing the Imam of the Age) by Dr. Bani Hashimi.

- 42. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 207-208.

- 43. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 & 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 44. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 155.

- 45. That is it includes Islamic rights.

- 46. This part is called the principles of Islam.

- 47. To pronounce the two testimonies of faith.

- 48. Having the right and correct belief in Islamic sciences.

- 49. Allamah Marashi Najafi: Ahqaaq al-Haqq, Vol. 2, Pg. 306.

- 50. This does not mean that believers do not enjoy special rights such as back-biting which is prohibited for believers. Refer: Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani. Translation of Ali bin Abi Talib (by Husayn Ostadoli) Pg. 665.

- 51. Allamah Sharafuddin: Mubaahis-e-Ameeqi Dar Jahat-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Deep discussions about Islamic unity), Pgs. 33-45.

- 52. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani. Translation of Ali bin Abi Talib (by Husayn Ostadoli) Pgs. 201-202.

- 53. The wrong beliefs can be treated with the same status.

- 54. Refer: Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10 Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 12, 16 & 24.

- 55. Refer: Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10 Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 13, 14 & 18.

- 56. The root of all differences, i.e. those of belief, behavior and jurisprudence, etc. go back to this fundamental difference.

- 57. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 205 quoted from Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami, Pg. 46.

- 58. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 28.

- 59. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 and 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 60. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 270.

- 61. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 191.

- 62. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 272.

- 63. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 135.

- 64. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pg. 176.

- 65. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat Pgs. 199-200.

- 66. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210.

- 67. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 210.

- 68. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 92.

- 69. Refer: Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 83-84 & Pgs. 92-93.

- 70. As it has been pointed out: Monotheism is the self of God. Prophethood is from the principles of Islam – the common ones. No one can deny it. In a detailed discussion it is said that in the next word God is seen. Whether can He be seen or not? This is a branch. According to texts about possibility of seeing God many arguments have been launched. This must be regarded a subsidiary matter.

- 71. In fact, he says: About Imamate and Guardianship of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) this much is mutually agreed upon that religion of Islam dwells on politics too. The rest of the matters such as the very Imamate and Guardianship of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) are subject to differences. Therefore they are branches and liable to personal conclusion of jurisprudents.
“Yes, we confirm this policy. I go even so farther as to believe this issue as totally among the essentialities of faith and common elements of all Islamic faiths. But as to the method of appointing a ruler as an Imam, or a Caliph is dispute among Islamic schools. Likewise, what qualities he should have, is a matter of dispute.” (Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 106).

- 72. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 83.

- 73. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 101.

- 74. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 92.

- 75. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 84.

- 76. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 134.

- 77. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 93.

- 78. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 128.

- 79. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 271.

- 80. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 136-137.

Discourse 4: Excusing Those Who Turn Away From Imamate And School Of Ahlul Bayt (‘a)

Introduction

Proponents of Islamic Unity have adopted a wrong method. They pose the distance and crevice between two schools as very little, indistinct and faint. On the other hand this distance and difference runs between followers and leaders of these two schools. As such, there exists depth in it.

A plan must be charted out to prevent differences among followers of various sects of Islam, in comprehension of religion from producing any kind of dispute. Further, a justification should be found for their religious beliefs and various religious conducts. Somehow or other, peace must be created between them and all Muslims. Then it will be natural that this scheme will be beneficial to unity-seekers who always sacrifice originality for sake of power. They say:

“Difference is outcome of personal opinions emanating from different conclusions of jurisprudents. Therefore, it should not become a cause for separation.”!1

“In remaining matters subject to difference among clerics, jurisprudence is kept open. In matters of jurisprudence, conduct, moral and speech they should come closer to each other through exchange of views and discussion.”2

All groups look upon themselves as jurisprudents. The difference in religious thoughts and conduct among various sects pushes them towards defense. This is the consequence of such an attitude.

“If Islamic clerics could prove by their jurisprudence that both sects, Shia and Sunni, have their wages reserved with God and they both will be dwellers of heaven provided they follow and practice their own religious rules and regulations. In this case alone a true unity can be brought about.”!3

Every Muslim while discharging his religious conduct in accordance with his belief in faith will see himself at a crossroad, taken by his jurisprudence and that is be excused or attain a reward.

“Religion itself has suggested that jurisprudents in such cases must proceed according to their personal conclusions. Difference that occurs therefrom is already acknowledged. A jurisprudent who derives God’s commandment by his own correct conclusion will have two wages. If a jurisprudent happens to make a mistake in his conclusion he will be eligible for only one wage.”!4

As though religion has not drawn any framework or formula for jurisprudents’ conclusions.5 Therefore in every case a view of an individual is respected and valid. It cannot be viewed as real difference.

It is enough for one to be sincere in jurisprudence. He will be a subject to the formula. It does not make a difference what method he chooses or which source he refers to. In any case, his judgments or conclusions should not be influenced by personal inclinations or selfish motives. This base embraces all Islamic sects, particularly Sunni sect. It is said:

“If the difference originates purely from thought and variety of conclusions not influenced by political motives, self lust, arrogance or self centeredness, religion tolerates such a difference. This is the principle much desired and favorable on tongues of Muslim clerics whether Sunnis or Shias. It is said that a successful jurisprudent has two wages from God. On the other hand a jurisprudent not reached to reality will have only one wage. As such, both categories will be paid. Religion does not reject difference thereby and reasons such as political, self-interests, transgression into others’ rights so on. Individuals might not have attained due results. But their sincerity in pursuit of truth and earnestness of efforts towards comprehension of faith is enough to gain a desirable position to them.”!6

As can be seen the only thing in this viewpoint is that attention is not paid to fundamentals and fixed standards of jurisprudence. Sources of information are also of utmost importance. As for validity and authenticity of sources, it is already prescribed by religious regulations. Therefore, the formula of exception (i.e. being excused) and wages or reward has bearing only on one who exercises and acts within framework of divine religion. A jurisprudent must derive his conclusions from traditions of trustworthy and reputed sources. In other words, traditions narrated by weak sources, such as Ayesha or Abu Huraira do not bear any weight against renowned sources. As we said if one acts on feeble base he cannot be liable to exception or excuse and wage or reward.

Consequence of such policy could be seen in the words of Ibn Hazm touching the standards of deriving conclusions in jurisprudence. Ibn Hazm was a scholar of School of Caliphate. He has commented about Muawiyah and Amr Aas:

“These two climbed to make out things for themselves at the ladder of jurisprudence as far as the issue of bloodshed goes. They acted after the method of those who issue decrees in domain of jurisprudence. For instance, one allows killing a magician while the other prohibits it. Then what is the difference between jurisprudence of Muawiyah and Amr Aas and others? It is nothing but ignorance, blindness of sight and heart, lack of information and a wrong argument.”!7

In view of unity-seekers they propose to make them live in brotherhood. Each one must let his brother live in freedom with regard to his opinion and outlook. This wrong standard or base that a jurisprudent enjoys excuse or exception and wages or rewards opens the way for all sects of Islam to differ from each other and also enjoy a reward, or wage and right to be at excuse according to occasion under umbrella of jurisprudence. In fact, no attention is paid to conditions prescribed by Islam to qualify a jurisprudent. So under such a chaos how all sects will be at home with each other? It is thus said:

“The difference among faiths of Islam mostly is attributed to difference among jurisprudents.”!8

“It is jurisprudence that has been the reason for appearance of sects in Islam. In the beginning, the difference among Muslims was based on political ground only. Later, ultimately and gradually it took to itself a trend and a tincture of faith which continues to this day. In fact, jurisprudence was originator of differences. We come across this fact in history of faith that a new faith has come into being by a cleric as he acted upon conclusion he reached in his jurisprudence. His followers too followed him. In the first half of second century when faiths took shape, each one according to his belief concluded something from his jurisprudence. Then he demonstrated his opinion to others. And others too followed his track. This is a reality. We must admit the facts. In the beginning each faith rested on proof and opinion concluded by jurisprudents. This is fundamental. We should argue thereon accordingly. I do not say that their knowledge was correct and coherent with facts. When we say jurisprudence, it does not mean that the grasp or conclusion of jurisprudents has been correct and crisp. A jurisprudent sometimes is also liable to mistakes. But on the ground of jurisprudence he enjoys excuse and is absolved. So in the background of each faith there is care, attention, a kind of grasping and concluding of opinions.”!9

“The subject that faiths among Sunni sect has sprung on basis of jurisprudents’ conclusion of opinion needs to be dwelled extensively.”!10

Consequently:

“With regard to branches of Islam11 all can debate and argue therein without preferring a faith over another. The door of jurisprudence is open for all. They can make a choice of a proper one among several opinions. As every faith has support of proof, we must respect it. If it is found reasonable, one should acknowledge it without a grudge.”!12

On the basis of majority thought, it is befitting and desirable that a jurisprudent must refrain from voicing his opinion if that happens to cause a rift in the Ummah or its affairs. He should pay attention to the interests of Ummah and safeguard unity. Although his opinion might be right; yet, the wider interests13 (although erroneous) should be overlooked.

His right belief and view must be set aside due to the reason of its being single while the majority (though wrong) must be respected. Any ground that could cause division among Muslims must be waived off.

It is said thus:

“One of the greatest virtues of Imam Ali (‘a) is holy war against his opinion and feelings at the time of difference. All Muslims must follow him in similar cases as he is a model.

The greatest of the holy wars he performed was immediately after the demise of the Prophet. He could have fought to regain his right. He could have created parties or groups in this regard. He could have withdrawn himself from Muslim gatherings. But he did not do any of those things. He pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. He thus rescued and saved Muslims from divisions. He kept his own opinion and right apart from the scene. He kept common interest above his own. He is a model in this respect for all leaders to be followed...”!14

It could be concluded from what preceded that unity-seekers think that if personal opinion of followers of schools could be known, it will help in preserving unity. No matter if their opinion be wrong, since opinion springs from jurisprudence, adversaries could be maintained!

We witness endeavors towards lifting and waiving aside differences in belief and in religious legislation among sects of Islam, though it is based on a wrong foundation.

Some examples are:

“Whether a Sunni, whatever, acts thinking it correct, has he any wages and excuses with God; though his performance could be against true divine command? Our answer to this question is positive.”!15

“All sects of Islam are bound into one Ummah. They all are liable to enjoy excuse and a wage with God because of the difference being a jurisprudential one.”!16

“Discussions of belief and worldly differences in branches originate from principles. And they do not differ from dispute of jurisprudence in practical side and rules of worship acts. Such different viewpoints will never end in enmity, row and quarrel. But it is similar to a difference between two experts and specialists in sciences and arts etc.”!17

“Difference between Shia and Sunni is difference between two jurisprudents of one faith in their conclusions in deriving a command.”!18

“Contradictory discussions are not divine descended revelations. They are all from category of jurisprudents conclusions.”!19

“Muslims should not show any sensitiveness against beliefs relating to adversaries. Each Muslim should know that others too are human beings like him. They too think and meditate as he does. They too are free in their choice of religion. As he regards his faith right and true according to reasons and proofs he argues, he too believes his faith correct and true. He too has his own reasoning and arguments.”!20

“We, in this secondary matter21 must take it for granted that some or other issue we understand is in a form particular to us. Likewise, others too understand issues in a manner of their own. Furthermore, it is quite likely that they could be right.”!22

“Shia might be at this belief in his heart that a Sunni could be dear to God and even liable to wages for his actions according to his own jurisprudence.”!23

As it could be noted from foregone quotations, differences first sprung from jurisprudence issues; then extended to arguments of belief taking support from principles of deriving conclusions in the domain of jurisprudence. It further gained ground that a jurisprudent has benefit of excuse and wages as well from God in his efforts to derive truth. In the meantime, real standards for reaching truth by means of jurisprudence fixed by Islam are ignored and conditions framed by faith for jurisprudence are yet to be distinguished.

It is pitiable that differences between Shia and Sunni are reflected as though they exist only in matters of belief and regulations having bearing on outcome of personal conclusions of jurisprudents. Further, the ways of jurisprudence in both sects are correct and are justified.

But in fact, it is not so as we shall point out during discussion.

“There is a basic difference in Shia and Sunni jurisprudence.”

Therefore, it is wrong reasoning that a jurisprudent has benefit of excuse and wage from God in his intellectual efforts. A jurisprudent’s effort must be based on a correct principle prescribed by faith, which is to follow School of Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. It is mentioned in Mutawatir (widely narrated) traditions. True and correct jurisprudence can only be attained by following the way shown by Ahlul Bayt of Prophet.

Therefore, every mental assumption or following a conjecture cannot be called jurisprudence. Likewise, the terms ‘excuse’ and ‘wage’ cannot be justified to give a religious covering to personal made-up conclusions for personal gains.

Before we could pass any judgment, let us first sketch a clear picture of principles and fundamentals of jurisprudence in Shia and Sunni schools.

Criticism And Analysis

The basis to remove differences between religious conducts and beliefs of followers of two schools is attributed to Ijtihaad. We too commence our discussion from this very point:

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this regard:

“Ijtihaad in the sense of Shia scholars differs completely from Ijtihaad that Sunni sect draws meaning from. Ijtihaad to a Shia means that a researcher or a Mujtahid (i.e. jurisprudent) exerts extensive efforts to draw a solution to an issue from Quran and traditions (hadith). Ijtihaad in the said sense paves a way, through holy verses of Quran for a jurisprudent to reach correct result by sifting decrees and discovering from commandments and rules. Whenever exists a decisive text or documentary proof in any matter, Ijtihaad in such or similar matters supports establishing a decree in sense of a law. On the other hand, in absence of a text or proof Ijtihaad comes to aid. The jurisprudent by his effort draws a solution from Quran or tradition, which establishes an authority to the issue in question.

However, it is some other kind of Ijtihaad that exists with the Sunni sect called ‘Ijtihaad of opinion.’ This Ijtihaad does not need any proof or document in Quran or tradition.24 The jurisprudent acts according to own conjecture and opinion in relation to circumstances. This is the standard with them. What he deems fit he issues a decree. Both the Caliph and Ibn Masood have said that in absence of text or proof, Ijtihaad is necessary. Ijtihaad meant here is one based on opinion or idea not that which needs background of Quran or traditions.25

Whenever a court became necessary and Abu Bakr was to pass the sentence and dispute was difficult to resolve he used to utilize similar precedent. If there did not exist any precedent, he used to invite persons of experience for consultation. Then he used to pass sentence according to their opinion.

This clearly shows that the Caliph and his associates did not regard Quranic verses or Sunnah of the Prophet worthy enough to cater to the need of the situation. They did not refer the matter to Imam Ali (‘a) – the rightful successor of Prophet. Therefore they considered themselves needless. Whatever their thought and mind suggested to them, they passed judgments without least care whether it was right or wrong.”26

Sunni clerics and scholars do not consider instances in their books sufficient to cater to all practical issues. On the other hand they do not accept the existence of an infallible Imam who is the final point of reference in such matters. So they go according to their conjecture, which is the most dangerous way.”27

When Umar appointed Shurai as a judge of Kufa he instructed him: When you come across a case unprecedented in Quran and tradition of Prophet, you better chose one of the two sides. Or if you want to go through Ijtihaad you can do that too.

Imam Ali (‘a) too appointed Shurai as judge. But he did not leave his hands free. He set conditions that he should not pass and execute the sentence without first informing the Imam. Ibn Masood narrates: Ali told the judge designate that if he confronted a case unprecedented in Quran or traditions, he must try to follow his own intellect. In the event of his inability, he should refrain from giving the sentence and not feel ashamed.

From this instance and its like it can be seen how much the Ummah benefited from teachings of Prophet.

This shows that they were confronting cases for the first time. Similar cases never existed before. Or they did not find any precedent. Therefore, they tried to pass judgment without a base in Quran or tradition.”28

“But those who believe in the Infallible Imam and his place after Prophet, reject this kind of reasoning. In issues of commandments and branches they refer to the Imam.”29

“Somehow or other it became clear to us that Caliphs had no way other than to manufacture opinions in cases new to them. They used to chain people by opinions of this rather than guiding them to commandments of God.”30

“The Second Caliph used to criticize people of opinion. The Caliph used lash of corruption against men of opinion. This shows what type of influence opinion had in those days. They depended on their own immature and erroneous opinions even when there were verses and traditions for their guidance. In most cases, they overlooked God’s commandments and pleasure because they preferred their own opinion, which is often imperfect.”

Unfortunately, the very Caliph was among those who did not benefit from advice. On many occasions, he has contradicted Quran and traditions of Prophet.31

The evidence for this type of Ijtihaad in the early days of Islam is as quoted here:

When Ibn Abbas was asked any question and if that existed in Quran, he used to answer accordingly. Or if the Prophet told anything in that concern he answered too. If not, he gave his own opinion. This served a ground for Sunni sect. Their jurisprudence books abound with such opinions, which have no worth in Shia view and all are taken from this source.”32

“They depend on these invalid and inauthentic bases. Therefore, Islamic jurisprudence took to itself a shape of school and that too into several ones in past centuries. Then, schools were formed and Imams were erected so plenty that Sunni scholars saw rescue only in shutting down Ijtihaad upon themselves. By so doing, they confined religion into four faiths.”33

“These events reflect that Islamic legislation did not attain its goal in Prophet’s time. Such a ground necessitates legislation to chase the errand by some other way and extend the office of prophethood. No one can occupy this office unless he is like the Prophet in all respects and possesses extensive knowledge; he must be Infallible and able to expound divine commandments to the masses. A man of such qualifications alone can attain such a great goal. Where is such a man? Who is such a man? The Ummah can neither spot nor find one for itself. God alone can introduce such a man to the people. God alone can appoint one because the office is divine and the choice too is His.”34

Now the question that arises is: Inspite of introductions that took place from day one right up to Ghadeer Khumm, in between this span such an introduction has taken place several times, whether there remains any excuse? Does there exist any hurdle to justify their act in turning away from Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a)? Is their attitude justifiable in not believing in Imamate and Wilayat of Infallible Ahlul Bayt?35

It is natural if we have an attitude other than what we have now towards followers of School of Caliphs; in fact it would have meant that we ignored the textual specification (Nass) about Imamate. We have turned our back on belief in Imamate. Our excuse is Ijtihaad. A jurisprudent’s conclusion is justification for such an act. All this is not weighty enough to face the trend of truth and current of reality. So, it is said:

“Shia and Sunni have differences in application of Caliphate. As such, their differences originate from comprehension of text, verses or intellectual arguments. Therefore Muslims in such branches must give justification to each other in having different conclusions.”!36

“Ijtihaad and regulation in faith is acknowledged by all. It has no specialty particularly to legislation (religious) and commandments. If there is difference either. If we witness somewhere the outlook with its accessories is differing with principles, then should we justify that too? Shia perhaps may not tolerate if we say that Caliphate is also from this category. It means it was uncertain. Therefore the issue (of Caliphate) changed to an issue of a branch and that of Ijtihaad.”!37

While the fact is that:

“Research for knowing the Imam is an obligatory duty due to reason that anyone at least might expect that God has appointed one to lead people after the Prophet.38 And He has commanded us to follow and obey him.

So this expectation persuades reason to push towards research about finding the Imam and if found to know him. It is a duty upon us. If we are deficient in this regard and there be a person – Imam – and we failed to know him, then there will be no excuse for us…”39

Therefore to reflect the difference as that of jurisprudents’ kind between two schools in the field of belief particularly in Imamate and Wilayat of Infallible Imams is unjustifiable. It means that text or verses in this regard are violated. The excuse for it ijtihaad. This causes a great part of Prophet’s instructions in this respect, which are commandments descended from God, to be forgotten and left unheeded.

So one can campaign or openly reject this basis against every obvious commandment of God and a clear text received from the holy legislator – all under pretext and excuse of Ijtihaad. And no blame can be attributed to him.40

Ijtihaad and difference in understanding serves as an excuse to Sunni school for turning away from religious teachings that entail beliefs and divine commandments. If we justify this today, it will push generation after generation backward. Can it be so? And thereby, each and every conduct and action of Caliphs and those who confiscated right of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) is considered as Ijtihaad of jurisprudents, i.e. the personal conclusion of opinion reached according to need or necessity. Can it be considered so?

Today, if we give covering of Ijtihaad to differences in jurisprudence and beliefs, particularly rescinding and rejecting divine text (Nass) regarding Imamate, it can certainly justify formation of Saqifah Bani Saada and hijacking the rightful Caliphate – the succession of Ali to the Prophet. And the later actions of Caliphs that created innovations in religion.

It is said:

“Events in early Islamic days can be seen from a different angle too. Ibn Abbas was secretary to Second Caliph. Ibn Abbas says: I told the Caliph that Prophet has said regarding Ali certain matters. The Caliph replied: Yes, but that is not final. People did not understand what the Prophet meant.”!41

“Difference among faiths of Islam is like difference among the Sunni sect and like difference among Shia clerics and jurisprudents. Different views exist among Shia jurisprudents.42 The difference between Shia and Sunni too from my viewpoint is of the same kind. In fact, it was only a difference in conclusions among companions of Prophet after his demise. Imam Ali (‘a) and his companions were of the belief according to proofs including occasion of Ghadeer that to succeed the Prophet was the right of Ali: on the other hand people of Saqifah, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their supporters formed the government. Ali too co-operated with them to the last43 although he had difference with them.”!44

The reality, which we agree, is this: It was a real and grave difference that took place over Caliphate after the Prophet. So we believe in immediate succession (i.e. Caliphate) of Ali without any gap. Our brothers, Sunnis, believe what happened at Saqifah was right. This difference in views between Shia and Sunni is a difference between a Muslim warrior a jurisprudent45 and a brother.”!46

As a matter of fact:

- The obvious and clear divine text (Nass) of Ghadeer Khumm based on Guardianship of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) binding all Muslims to follow it. Is it Ijtihaad?

- Or is it Ijtihaad to go against Prophet’s orders to provide him with pen and ink so that he could put into writing that which could save the Ummah from going astray?47

- How is it possible to claim that the Prophet was uttering nonsense while Quran testifies his word as well as himself to be infallible?

Indeed, by the courageous and brave Ijtihaad!?!

- Opposition to Prophet’s command to join Usamah’s army, is that too Ijtihaad while Quran enjoins absolute and unconditional obedience to Prophet?

- Is it also Ijtihaad to break sanctity and transgress the sacred offspring of Prophet and attack the house of his only daughter, Fatima? Is it not disobedience to the Quranic verse that makes it obligatory to love relatives of Prophet (Ahlul Bayt)?

- Confiscation of Fadak which openly goes against Quranic order and Prophet’s instructions; can it be named Ijtihaad?48

Let us not forget that difference in belief among the sects of Islam about Imamate is fruit of same attitude undertaken by Caliphs. Today some claim Shiaism has named it Ijtihaad. They call it a difference between brothers.

Possibly a question could arise here. There should not be any difference in order, to obtain Islamic unity. On the other hand the last discussion relates to differences of jurisprudents.

In other words, how can it be possible to set aside differences of jurisprudents and obtain unity?

The answer that group of unity-seekers gives is:

“Ali’s action was to preserve the school and unity. He was so great that he could not entertain any rancor against any for trifle worldly positions. For this reason, he paid allegiance to Caliphs and at the same time reserved his own viewpoint. But as for Muawiyah, Ali took him to account because his rebellion had gone beyond difference. For Ali life was a symbol of forgiveness and he was too pacifying at the clash of views.”!49

We discussed about wrong method of arguments of difference under umbrella of Ijtihaad between Shia and Sunni. That Ijtihaad too is free from any conditions fixed by faith. As a result, in early days of Islam difference between leaders of two sides is to be acknowledged as that of jurisprudents. Now we would like to discuss conduct of forgiveness in dealing with differences of views which end to benefit of Sunnis from Shia side. This is for sake of protecting unity.

Imam is infallible. He is absolutely obedient to commands of God. He believes that Imamate and Wilayat (of Imam) are decrees of God. The result of Saqifah is clear and obvious contradiction with divine instructions and trampling upon divine texts (Nass), which descended in Quran’s verse on Ghadeer Day. How can it be accepted that Imam with such qualities could agree with result of Saqifah under excuse ofIjtihaad and difference in views and personal opinions? There cannot be any forgiveness in God’s decrees. With regard to, Imamate and Guardianship, God’s decrees cannot be ignored. The right of succession (Caliphate) cannot be overlooked under pretext of misunderstanding. The right of succession is already stolen and hijacked. So how can Imam come to terms with them in this regard?

However perhaps such expressions can reflect good ability towards attracting followers of all sects. But they are bereft of sincerity and honesty. These thoughts do not have any originality and religious source. Besides, they are factors of deviation in Shiaism. Furthermore, they hinder movements of knowledge towards inviting people to School of Ahlul Bayt and towards correcting belief of all Muslims. Otherwise it paves way to followers of all sects to give up their efforts to research or undertake intellectual endeavors to know Imamate under pretext of Ijtihaad. As such, they will see themselves under no obligation in this respect at all.

This trend in the end shall push coming generations to this wrong belief which is:

“Perhaps this could serve a point here. Right from the start of Islam various tendencies of jurisprudence and scholastic theology were named religion. It is a fact that all of them are headed to one destination.”!50

“Each of those ways is a faith and path to Islam. The Sunni’s path is tradition. Through path of tradition, they reach to truth. Shia’s path is that of Family and Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. They receive light of Islamic truth through them.”!51

“The real religion is Islam. All believe in it. Madhab (i.e. religion) in Ma’rif means ‘Way, ‘Path’ (and the place of going) towards religion. Thus Islamic faiths are paths to Islam. Their origin is mostly Ijtihaad. Difference in outlook with regard to Quran and tradition originates from understanding of persons and the Ijtihaad of persons.”!52

“We understand like this. They understand like that. We should look upon each other by tolerance or giving the margin of excuse.”!53

“Islamic society must pace in track of real unity that could patch hearts. First of all we should overrun the thought that Sunni thinks Shia and Shia thinks Sunni is a hell dweller. Then alone can we attain the goal.”!54

Another Criticism And Analysis

“Companions and cronies of each Caliph used to say, whenever he committed a mistake, that it was his Ijtihaad…”55

Allamah Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili writes in this regard:

“The first who gave wind to the term of Ijtihaad56 in order to cover and justify religious errors of others was the First Caliph. Then the Second Caliph took benefit of this term. During his Caliphate Khalid bin Waleed killed Malik bin Nuwairah – a reputed companion of the Prophet. The Caliph came under pressure to bring Khalid to justice for his crime. It should be remarked here that Malik was a staunch follower of Ali; and he refused to acknowledge the new authority that had captured power.

After killing Malik, Khalid slept with his widow the very same night. On this occasion, Abu Bakr said: He contemplated and erred.57

Then afterwards they narrated that if anyone reached correct result through Ijtihaad he has double wages from God. If he commits a mistake he will have single. The narrators are Amr bin Aas, Abu Huraira and Umar bin Khattab.

This saying is like a philosopher’s stone, even more valuable than that, which turns dust into gold.

This has served a ground for their committing most terrific and ugly crimes. For instance, how many innocent people were murdered? The battles of Jamal, Siffeen, assassination of Imam Ali (‘a), Ammar bin Yasir, abusing Imam Ali (‘a) from over thousands of pulpits for a thousand months and massacre of Imam Husayn, his children and associates and taking into captivity of his family from town to town.

All this and more than this was done under covering and justification of Ijtihaad. To make benefit common throughout a complete generation this medal of Ijtihaad was given to justify all their mistakes and errors. Among them, there were rogues, rascals, ruffians, usurpers, murderers, fornicators and drunkards. No saying goes for those who rose against the Infallible Imam of their time. Their scholar and their ignorant both did not know how to perform prayers or how to divorce a wife.

They have even gone so far as to say that whatever is done is Ijtihaad. To act on Ijtihaad is a compulsory obligation. It is not allowed to treat one as profligate while he is performing Ijtihaad. Some have said that for companions it is allowed to act on personal opinion against text because it is their distinction. Others do not enjoy such a right.”58

Therefore, on this basis:

“Years later we see Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.) introducing Abul Ghadia, killer of Ammar Yasir to be a contemplator a Mujtahid and one deserving of exceptional reward from Allah!

And Ibn Turkamani Hanafi (d. 750 A.H.) that extolled Ibn Muljim Muradi for assassinating Imam Ali (‘a). Further, he is regarded as a scholar and jurisprudent! Another associate of his, named Ibn Hajar (d. 852 A.H.) says for companions of Ali who fought on his side in battles during his rule that the jurisprudent who made mistake has one wage and one reward with God.”59

“In this way, followers of School of Caliphs have reached unanimity since Second Century Hijri until today that all companions were Mujtahids. God will ignore all their wrongs; that is the blood they have shed and the enmity they harbored. God will ignore their wrongs and will even reward them. This thought applies upto Muawiyah’s time. Some believe that Ijtihaad is effective until the time of Yazid…”60

- 1. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 176.

- 2. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pg. 151.

- 3. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat, Pgs. 177-178.

- 4. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 27-28.

- 5. For more details refer to the translation of Maalimul Madrasatain Vol. 2.

- 6. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 63.

- 7. Quoted from: Allamah Al-Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pg. 105.

- 8. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 101.

- 9. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 178-179.

- 10. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 180.

- 11. As mentioned in the domain of jurisprudence.

- 12. Ibid. Payaam-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 151-152.

- 13. That may results in safeguarding unity.

- 14. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Inquilaab-e-Farhangi-O-Tableeghi (Revolution of culture and propaganda), Pgs. 71-72. Quran-o-Tableegh, Pg. 69 (Facsimile New Essay Vol. 4, Pg. 26).

- 15. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat, Pg. 174.

- 16. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

- 17. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Hindrances’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pgs. 222-223.

- 18. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 74, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

- 19. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 & 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 25.

- 20. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article: ‘Unity in Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pgs. 144-145.

- 21. He says: Branches means issues sprung from basic principle in both the dimensions of rules and beliefs.
(Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 & 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 12.

- 22. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issue 9 & 10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 24.

- 23. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat, Pg. 168.

- 24. The Sunni sect does not refer to the infallible Imams because they do not believe in Imamate. They do not consider them as religious source. After the Prophet they refer to Ayesha and Abu Huraira. Their Ijtihaad does not depend on Quran and Sunnah.

- 25. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pgs. 101-102.

- 26. Ibid. Pgs. 98-99.

- 27. Ibid. Pgs. 96.

- 28. Ibid. Pgs. 99-100.

- 29. Ibid. Pg. 96.

- 30. Ibid. Pg. 105.

- 31. Refer: Allamah Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqaabil-e-Nass (Ijtihaad against Islamic texts); Allamah Firozabadi: Shinasaai Haft Tan Dar Sadr-e-Islam (Introduction of seven person in early Islam); Allamah Al-Askari: Deedgaah-e-doo Maktab Dar Baare Madaarik-e-Islami (Outlooks of Two Schools about sources of Islamic legislation).

- 32. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam, Pg. 102-103.

- 33. Ibid. Pg. 104.

- 34. Ibid. Pg. 105.

- 35. If it be so we cannot justify later Ijtihaad that is not dependent on the infallible Imam or without having obtained knowledge from them.

- 36. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in the periodical, ‘Haft Aasmaan’ Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 37. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 38. That is Imamate.

- 39. Reza Ustadi: 25 Dars Dar Bare Imamat (25 Lessons on Imamate), Pg. 11.

- 40. Refer: Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Maalimul Madrasatain Vol. 2, This book has been translated under the title of: Deedgaah-e-doo Maktab Dar Baare Madaarik-e-Islami (Outlooks of Two Schools about sources of Islamic legislation).

- 41. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 37.

- 42. Establishment of link between difference of Islamic faiths with difference of Shia clergies in arguments of knowledge has been sketched in the following way:
The differences among Muslims are in unnecessary matters and unimportant Issues. This does not harm unity of Islamic nation, even a bit. Even among scholars of every sect there exist differences in viewpoints of knowledge and jurisprudence. For instance, in Shia faith amidst jurisprudents there is difference in unimportant and side matters. (Message of Unity, Pg. 242)

- 43. We shall reply to this objection.

- 44. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 61-62.

- 45. His conjecture about Ijtihaad and jurisprudence of companions is in accordance with outlook of School of Caliphs regarding sources of Islamic legislation.

- 46. Ibid. Interview quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 61-62.

- 47. Refer: Ghulam Husayn Zain Ali: A Letter left Unwritten (Analysis regarding the case of pen and ink-pot).

- 48. Refer: Reza Ustadi: Article: ‘Fadak’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali, Vol. 8, Pgs. 345-402.

- 49. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22, 30 & 31.

- 50. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Hindrances’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 227.

- 51. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 177.

- 52. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 53-54.

- 53. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 14.

- 54. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pg. 167.

- 55. Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 67.

- 56. The term of Mujtahid used in Sunni School denotes those who made themselves free to create laws and rules against rules of God and the Prophet.
But in the school of Shiaism this term is applied to one who draws rules from sources of Infallible Imams.
In the due course Shia school applied this term to an expert in jurisprudence therefore the meaning of this term differs with what the Sunnis jurisprudence denotes.

- 57. The terms of ‘Ijtihaad’ and ‘Mujtahid’ became common after the era of Caliphs and their followers. So Caliphs translate divine decrees and any other puzzling issue themselves according to their own taste or necessity. They did not want any authentic or authoritative source. Allamah Al-Askari: Deedgaah-e-doo Maktab Dar Baare Madaarik-e-Islami (Outlooks of Two Schools about sources of Islamic legislation), Pg. 89.

- 58. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Ranj Haai-e-Hazrat-e-Zahra (Agonies of Zahra), Pgs. 127-128.

- 59. Allamah Al-Askari: Deedgaah-e-doo Maktab Dar Baare Madaarik-e-Islami (Outlooks of Two Schools about sources of Islamic legislation), Pg. 92.

- 60. Ibid. Pg. 109.

Discourse 5: Alterations In Beliefs Of Shia Ja’fari Twelve Imamite Faith

This chapter contains three subjects:

– First Deviation: With regard to relation between Imamate and rulership.

– Second Deviation: Deletion of Imamate from principles of religion.

– Third Deviation: To seek distance from enemies of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt.

This item is avoided from Shia teachings.

First Alteration: Imamate And Rulership

Introduction

As has become evident the ground of Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt forms and frames differences between beliefs of followers of Ahlul Bayt and Caliphs in addition to right of succession of Infallible Ahlul Bayt, which was hijacked at Saqifah Bani Saada. This Saqifah is the spot wherefrom start all troubles, agonies, tyranny, terror and so forth against the Imams, the offspring of Prophet. For instance, one is attack on the house of the only daughter of Prophet. This attack gave strength to pillars of later tyranny that was in store for Prophet’s family. As such, the differences too attain depth between two schools, Shia and Sunni, which cannot be denied.

Existence of such a wide crevice could appear to those who invite towards Islamic unity, as a setback. To remove this setback, in their mind, no stone should be left unturned.

We witness a unique thought and an odd idea towards separating the position of Imamate of Ahlul Bayt from office of rulership. They claim that worldly position or any office is worthless and too little for dignity of an Imam.

As a result of these misunderstandings they think that Imam Ali (‘a) was on good terms with Caliphs. We shall deal with this conjecture in a systematic manner in this chapter.

With regard to deviation of relation of Imamate and rulership our discussion is as follows:

First batch: There are three kinds of separations between Imamate and rulership.

Type A)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of argument.

Type B)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate.

Type C)

Separation of Imamate from rulership, in the frame of ‘Great Imamate’ and ‘Great Caliphate’.

Second batch: to show rulership in little value or worth before Imamate.

First Batch: Three Types Of Separations Between Imamate And Rulership

Introductory Conjecture

“Difference between issue of Caliphate and that of Imamate is one of strong pillars. Of course each one justifies it in one way or another.”!1

This conjecture is expressed in the following thought:

Type A)

Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of setting aside Caliphate and considering it out of discussion:

“Muslims today are in no need to discuss about past Caliphate. The thing that we must stress thereon and prove is this: The Prophet had set Members of his Household at the level of Quran and oracles for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims even today stand in need of them. The issue of Caliphate or rulership does not matter here…”!2

“We already differ with Sunni sect in issue of Caliphate. Now presently Caliphate does not exist. Therefore, there should not be any ground to quarrel. But the thing that is useful to us is aspect of Wilayat. In other words, the authority of learning or knowledge and their being final oracle or source of religious issues to refer. The position of Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt still exists. Their fountain still gushes.”!3

“The Prophet in his time held the office of the oracle of Muslims. Then he (the Prophet) appointed Imam Ali (‘a) as the final authority of knowledge and his inheritor after his death. The Prophet acquainted people with the names of all twelve Imams as his heirs.”!4

“It is very much interesting that people feel pity at the issue of Caliphate and its getting shifted. But nobody laments nor does he feel sorry for our having been deprived of benefits of knowledge of Ali and his sons –heirs of the Prophet. The shifting of Caliphate severed for us the link of Guardianship.”!5

“Commonly all people in their various categories and capacities – speakers of congregations, speak on subject of Caliphate snatched away at Saqifah.”!6

“When Shaykh Attar refers to Lord Ali, he mentions him from the angle of Guardianship.7 Likewise, Maulana too mentions him in the same angle and adds: This Caliphate, a matter of dispute for you, is not important. The status and position that Imam Ali (‘a) held in the scope of knowledge is far greater one. The link of soul that he enjoyed is more important. Ali himself did not pay any importance to Caliphate.”!8

Type B)

Separation of Imamate from Rulership in the sense of Caliphate being independent of Imamate:

“Imamate and Caliphate are two separate entities quite different from each other but coherent. The best way of peace is: to recognize or acknowledge the Caliph as a trustee and a guard over treasures of earth and Imam over treasures of divine knowledge through the Prophet.”9

In this outlook deviation with regard to link between Imamate and Caliphate starts thus:

“As a matter of fact, there is no difference between the two. These two offices since the beginning until the end are at congruity with each other. Therefore, in Shia dictionary, Imamate has never been against Caliphate.

As such, an understanding or co-ordination is possible between the two to the extent to acknowledge one (Caliphate) as a trustee of earthly treasures and the other (Imam) as a trustee of divine and Prophet’s knowledge.”!10

Because: “Caliphate of righteous Caliphs is a position other than Imamate.”!11

As a result:

“The issue of Caliphate and Imamate are two issues separate from each other but with a caliber of co-ordination with each other.”!12

In fact, it could be summed up as:

The outcome of this claim to separate Imamate and Caliphate from each other. Imamate is considered at a station other than Caliphate and Caliphate occupies a place other than Imamate.

Thus, it is said:

“The subject of Imamate from the outlook of the strong verses of Quran is separate from rulership.”!13

“The late Allamah Simnani14 writes in Islam magazine: ‘Imamate and Caliphate are actually two issues. Caliphs had accepted and acknowledged Imamate of Imam Ali (‘a). Ali too had accepted their Caliphate. He used to say: You rule but I will solve the difficulties. They had agreed to this. Particularly the Second Caliph had sincerely accepted this proposal of Ali.15These are the ways we can follow.”!16

At this wrong belief it is said:

“Imam Ali (‘a), with the high spirit he had, went far and far, beyond and beyond Caliphate.”!17

“Imam Ali (‘a), in fact, was far beyond above elected Caliphate.”18

“Imam Ali (‘a) has openly and frankly stated: I have no rivalry with you in an elected Caliphate. He enjoyed a far more important spiritual position and distinction; that is Guardianship of Muslims. Besides, he was an Imam and father of Imams. Imamate was his lot. Besides, the most close and intimate relation and link he enjoyed with the Prophet.”!19

“There is another duty among duties of Imamate and Guardianship which is far important than Caliphate. That duty is to preserve and safeguard treasures of knowledge of the Prophet and to transfer it honestly and correctly to scholars, people and clerics.”!20

“Another example of the activity of the office of Wilayat and Imamate of Ali in the era of Caliphs, we clearly see how high and important it is than the elected office.”!21

“The Guardianship and heritage of divine information vested with him by God goes far beyond elected Caliphate.”!22

Deviated Repercussions Of This Conjecture

First Wrong Result

According to this outlook, we cannot find any other justification for avoidance and unwillingness of Imam Ali (‘a) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.23 There are actions of oppression and tyranny. House of only daughter of Prophet, Fatima was attacked and set afire and the flames consumed the door. All this was done directly by Caliphs themselves. The only conclusion that can be drawn is this: The base is wrong. In such circumstances, acknowledgment of Ali to Abu Bakr’s authority is a thing caused by conditions prevalent at that time. Therefore it is a natural outcome. Hence it is written as follows:

“Imam Ali (‘a) refused to give allegiance for a short period. But his high conduct and demeanor and forgiving nature made him pay allegiance.”!24

“Imam Ali’s (‘a) only aim was to safeguard Islam, protect its entity and preserving unity.25Therefore he paid allegiance to Caliphs.”!26

Or they write:

“The conduct and behavior of Ali and his sons with Caliphs was such that it took to itself to reflect as if acknowledgement and acceptance is mingled, mixed, molded.”!27

“Ali for the sake of interests accepted rulership of two Caliphs.”!28

“Ali refrained for a period after passing away of Prophet, afterwards he did Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”!29

How can it be accepted at all that Ali should accept and acknowledge Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? A Caliphate that was framed against divine consent? A Caliphate that was usurped and taken by force, trick and tyranny? A Caliphate, which has trespassed on Quranic verses and trampled the command of God? A Caliphate, which came into being by overrunning clear instructions of the Prophet himself. So how can Ali accept such a Caliphate? An acceptance that originates from the heart! Yet, Ali did. This shows his foresight and how dear the interests of Islam were at his heart.

In this respect, it is written thus:

“Abu Bakr takes oath to the effect that loves the Prophet’s Ahlul Bayt more than his own relatives. Further, he commits himself to follow the Prophet’s policy and his works. Then Ali tells him: The place to give allegiance is the Mosque tomorrow.”!30

“He sees that one who has occupied the chair of power will exert efforts to make it stronger and extensive. Therefore he will try to extend the geography of Islam. So he paid the allegiance.”!31

In other words to believe in this type of Bay’at is in contradiction to principles of Shia faith due to the following reason:

Imamate, Wilayat and Caliphate are divine offices bestowed by God. They are inseparable from each other. Likewise, they cannot be transferred or delegated to others.

Whatever Imam Ali (‘a) did in every befitting opportunity was to establish truth and prove the injustice done to him. By his campaign, he declared to people the illegitimacy, unlawfulness and invalidity of their Caliphate, which was his right and snatched away from him. Likewise, the unique and unparalleled campaign of Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet, demonstrates that they usurped the right of Ali to succeed the Prophet and Caliphate which was a legitimate right of Ali. On the other hand the tyrants did know that rulership and Caliphate is an absolute right of Ali vested to him by the Prophet at the commandment of God. So if Ali (‘a) did not pay allegiance, their Caliphate would not attain legitimacy and will forever remain usurped.

Therefore, they persisted with all force, tricks and tyranny they could. What history openly shows is this:

When Ali did not answer positively to their call to pay allegiance to their authority they set fire to the door of Zahra’s house and threatened to burn alive the dwellers – the progeny, the kith and kin of Prophet. Then an attack on the house was launched. At this stage they had to face Zahra’s defense. She took the lead to save Wilayat and Imamate of Ali. By all their brazen-facedness they pushed her aside. Then they took hold of Ali and dragged him to the Mosque. All the while a naked sword was drawn over his head – a constant threat accompanied him which could come true any moment. They tried to draw from him what was their desire (allegiance to Abu Bakr). Their design did not succeed because of presence of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter.

If the Imam had least desire to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or had he a least agreement with that group or for sake of any other reason had he any interest to benefit of the Ummah or Islam there was no sense in obstinacy he showed. The force and tyranny applied to him is enough to prove his unwillingness to accept Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. How could he agree for his right to be usurped and give acceptance to this?

All this goes to prove that:

Rulership is a right bestowed by God. As a result, it cannot be exchanged or given to others. It is irrevocable.

Such a thing would be to ignore divine decree and commit terrific atrocities; and yet they say:

“For the sake of interests of Muslims he transferred the right of leadership to others.”!32

Second Wrong Result

After Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani33 for the first time dwelled on such a type of thought in his article in a magazine of Egypt, Message of Islam, published by Darul Taqreeb34 Muhammad Madani, principal of Islamic law college of Azhar and director of the said magazine, depending on contents of the article wrote an essay titled: ‘A great change in Al-Azhar University.’ He writes:

“This discourse clearly conveys that accusation of usurpation of Caliphate and that those who took the reins of power were usurpers, is baseless. It is far from Shia principles of faith. They too, like all Muslims, consider the basis rests at the satisfaction of masses.”!35

The wrong result is not drawn directly from conjecture of separation between Imamate and rulership. But it is drawn on the basis of first result of this category of conjectures.

It is thus said:

“Satisfaction and Bay’at of Ali with Caliphs established that Ali did not regard their government illegitimate.”!36

Creation of such a picture of Shia belief in the minds of followers of Caliph’s school could possibly be an effective step towards unity. But it must not be ignored that a right will have to be sacrificed for sake of unity. Unity cannot be turned into a slaughterhouse of reality. Negligence in facts and figures can only result in imaginative unity. Our next generation shall take this wrong belief:

“It is quite possible for Shias as they follow Ali and his sons to admit authenticity of Caliphate with a simultaneous belief in the position of Imamate.”!37

On the basis of this separation comfort can be drawn that Ali occupied a befitting position. Although the office of Caliphate is separate from that of their Imamate but there is no reason for any anxiety because:

“Imam Ali (‘a) practically enjoyed the office of Guardianship and Imamate among masses. The people brought to him their complaints against Caliphs. Caliphs too often used to consult him in matters which were difficult for them to solve. Ali was a supervisor over their actions and at the same time a guide to them…38”!39

So we must be happy that his Imamate is not denied to him or any tyranny done against him and no right of his is usurped.

Similarly we should accept that Caliphs were never deviated because their government was run under his supervision. Fatima’s house was attacked and set on fire. Consequently, Fatima met her martyrdom and Mohsin was miscarried. All this happened in order to make Ali accept this high position to supervise duties of Caliphs and to guide them. Caliphs wanted to protect Islam!

Thus it is said:

“If people at consultation of Imam make a man of their choice manage their affairs and administer Islamic government their guardian choose Islamic government, the things will go better under his watch and control at his divine authority.”!40

Third Wrong Result

Does there remain any room for difference, dispute or a distance between Imam and Caliphs on the ground of what passed? So, is there any reason for quarrel between their followers?

The cardinal result that these unity-seekers are after is to show otherwise the relations between Imam and usurpers of his right of Caliphate. On a false basis, they try to establish that there lasted peace and understanding between them.

The thought of unity is turned into a real belief. The standard of real foundation and unity is ignored. According to this sort of thought, difference between Ali and Caliphs, in addition to contrast between beliefs of Shia and Sunni about Imamate and Caliphate is commented and changed ‘as if there existed understanding between the two.’41 The readers will conclude the mistaken result.

For instance:

“What crime is greater than one that creates difference among Muslim Ummah while the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms.”!42

Type C)

Separation of Imamate from rulership in a frame of Great Imamate and Great Caliphate:43

As it must have been observed so far, separation of Imamate from rulership (Caliphate) means complete independence from Wilayat (of infallible Imam). This is a wrong dimension, an erroneous angle, a mistaken outlook of some unity-seekers under a pretext of a suitable way to resolve.44

About these two offices, the vested or bestowed Guardianship and elected or selected Caliphate, much is said from this mistaken conjecture. Relations between these two offices and its heads is illustrated like this:

1 – These two offices: affairs and duties they have are totally different from each other. Therefore, they are separate. There are not many common elements between them. They are independent of each other.

2 – There is a parallel link between these two positions independent of each other regardless of duties and obligations of each. As such, an understanding and comprehension exists between the two. The office holders (of these two positions) have no differences beyond mutual complaints.

Thus, it is said:

“If opinions are exchanged in this regard it was baseless and not in a position of these two offices. In my opinion it is better not to call it a difference. It was only a complaint.”!45

3 – The position of Wilayat with regard to status, dignity, responsibility, duties and obligations make the holder of this office very much important and far higher and more sacred than office of Caliphate. This theory is applied to position of Caliphate. So consequently, coming down to position of an elected Caliphate one who holds the status of Guardianship it is too low and too little for him and his dignity. Considering the higher status of Guardianship than Caliphate and taking in view Imam’s carelessness and paying no importance to government’s position it can be said that nothing was taken away from him by Caliphs!

4 – The position of Imam’s Guardianship was active throughout the period of three Caliphs. The responsibility that entailed this office for Ali was acceptable to Caliphs, so none of his rights was usurped. Caliphs’ government was also not a government formed by force. Caliphs had acknowledged and even depended on authority of Ali, of his knowledge in which he was the final point of reference.

If one looks at these criticisms made by deviated outlook this much will be concluded that the difficulties of such outlooks are the wrong and perverted conclusions about Imamate and Caliphate.

In short, Caliphate, which is a reality by divine decree, has been deleted from Shia belief and an elected Caliphate is inserted instead.

The corrupted ones’ claim is that the Imam was not the head of Caliphate. They tried their best to show Caliphate (i.e. rulership) of less value and importance. However, this outlook is never accepted by Shia.

These unity-seekers have their own opinion about Caliphate of Infallible Imams. They have tried here to lift the handicaps towards acceptance. They want to consummate their earlier theory.

If it is revised, the office of Caliphate, which was completely a separate entity from office of Guardianship, now is divided into two branches:

Part A) The great Caliphate: They have brought it to the level or grade of great Guardianship of Ali.

Part B) The open Caliphate: (Caliphate in public view): This is the same elected Caliphate. As said earlier, in this conjecture this is the only branch of Caliphate separated from Imamate.

To describe these two branches, it is said:

“Depending on this theory, it can be said that Imam Ali (‘a) like Joseph, the Prophet, during the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet in affairs of politics, law and economics had great Caliphat in addition to great Imamate. But someone else was clad in the cloak of Caliphate.”!46

Particulars Of This Oblique New Thought About The Great Caliphate

First Particularity: The great Caliphate is higher than Caliphate, which is open to people. The reason: it is like a stationary millstone and a base. So it is a pivot of government. Therefore, Ali had no desire for this open Caliphate.

Thus it is said:

“Ali was aware of this fact that if he accepts Caliphate there is none to undertake the ministry which is a harder and more difficult job. There was none to become the stationary stone of a hand mill; that is to become a pivot thereon to rotate affairs of government.”!47

Second Particularity: The great Caliphate is more influential and efficacious than the apparent Caliphate. The reason: the Imam can interfere or issue orders in Caliphate wherever and whenever he deemed fit.

Third Particularity: The great Caliphate is active behind the curtain. Its dignity is beyond ordinary affairs. It has no direct link to government business.

In explanation of these particularities, such is expressed:

“Ali was like a pivot of Islamic government although apparently he was in the background. The cloak of Caliphate had covered some other body just like Prophet Joseph who commanded wherever he wanted.”!48

“The great Imamate and great Caliphate of Ali demanded him to guide and give opinion in affairs of Caliphate, in administrative matters and in military advances. He left army movements to care of others.”!49

One who designed this wrong conjecture after sketching such a picture of this great Caliphate claims that this position of Ali was active in the time of Caliphs. But the great Caliphate of his had begun immediately after passing away of Prophet.

It is again said that:

“Amirul Momineen (‘a) immediately after passing away of Prophet took office of great Imamate and great Caliphate in background of apparent Caliphate. Some think that he was aloof and took shelter in the corner of his house. But it was not so.”!50

“During the period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet, he held great Caliphate in fields of politics, economics and law though someone else wore the gown of apparent Caliphate.”!51

Deviated Repercussions Of This Conjecture

First Wrong Result

Since the great Caliphate of Ali was active immediately after passing away of Prophet throughout the period of Caliphate, which was in appearance, so no right of his was usurped or confiscated.

Thus it is said:

“Imam Ali (‘a) besides the five years he was physically in the scene he had great Imamate and great Caliphate all over the period of thirty years since passing away of Prophet.”!52

Second Wrong Result

Considering differences between great Caliphate and Caliphate, visible to the people, it is not usurpation – that is the actions committed by those (other than Ali) who took over Caliphate. So their government was not illegitimate.

Third Wrong Result

That the holder of great Caliphate acknowledged Caliphate held by other, which was visible to people, is a natural and normal thing.

In this respect, they say:

“After a short period he did Bay’at for the sake of unity, peace, calm and safety of Islam.”!53

Consequently the invalid and illegitimate Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar is being shown as lawful, valid and under supervision of Ali. A Caliphate (as though) approved and accepted by Ali!

Reminder

Whatever you read up to here was a report of claim coined in a new thought of unity-seekers. This new thought was erroneous and wrong in addition to dimension which too was wrong and deviated.

The writer of the article has tried to reason and give evidence in order to establish the validity of his theory that the great Caliphate was active throughout the period in which others had worn the gown of Caliphate. They are as follows:

“The great Caliphate of Imam Ali (‘a) during a period of thirty years after passing away of Prophet – we shall revise...

Guiding Caliphs in political, economical, legal and judicial affairs and keeping them from going astray.

Appointing his own persons in key posts.”!54

Then the writer explains ways and proceeds of his great Caliphate giving details about consultations of Caliphs with him. He further adds and explains the part he and his companions had in government and military advances.

We would like to remark here that we shall deal with all these points in the second and third chapters of second volume in detail.

The claim that his great Caliphate was active during the period of twenty-five years of Caliphs is nothing but an exaggeration far from reality and remote from facts. It is against history.

Here we draw your attention to a short criticism of the conjecture of Caliphate being separate from Imamate and Wilayat.

Criticism And Opinion

Guardianship And Imamate Is Inseparable From Apparent Caliphate

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this respect:

“There is another theory against all we have said so far. Shia scholars agree unanimously on it. The theory goes to say: Imamate is a guardianship bestowed by God to Imam. To make it more clear: Imamate is a position similar to prophethood. It is neither selected nor elected. It is chosen or appointed by God Himself. The holder of this position, the Imam, is chosen and appointed by God.

Therefore, Imamate is extension of Message brought down to people by Prophet. A Prophet is a founder of divine legislation over the earth. Imam is a guard of this legislation and guard of Message. Imam goes parallel with the Prophet except in getting revelation, which is the only distinction of Prophet. The Imam too is distinguished with qualifications and qualities necessary to a Prophet. He must be unique in knowledge and well conversed with principles, fundamentals, branches, decrees, rules, etc. An Imam too must be protected from committing any mistakes, big or small.55 The office of Imamate in Shia school is extension of duties, which are Prophet’s responsibility. Imam performs all duties of a Prophet. The obligations that bind a Prophet are transferred to the Imam.”56

As such if rulership is within the ambit of prophethood of a prophet and this office is established in the entity of prophet, then it cannot be separated from the entity of an Infallible Imam also. Therefore it cannot belong to other than the person of Imam. Since Imamate is the extension of prophethood, rulership too comes within the range of Imam’s responsibilities as it was the case with the Prophet. Therefore it is unreasonable to think of separation between office of Imamate and rulership.

We follow this discussion from the angle of knowing minutely the duties of a Prophet:

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes under the heading: Whether government is possible without an Infallible Imam – if it is a divine right:

“There is no doubt that one of the duties of prophets and one of the branches of their Guardianship is their government and their command over people. The government which in reality and originally belongs to God and delegated to Prophet and then to men of God, is a government framed and formed by justice, divine regulations and virtue of God’s commands.

In Bani Israel Prophets Dawood and Sulaiman had such a divine rightful government by God’s decree. The right and just government is that which is established by God’s orders; not on conjectures, fancies or guess, which is always accompanied with surmise and suspicion. So it is often associated with lust, desire, aspiration and greed. It is absolutely impossible to administer such a government unless the administrator has extensive knowledge in all sciences and fields relative and necessary, such as punishments and particularities of a ruling. He should be cold and calm, able to overcome his own anguish and anger. He must be able to control his personal greed, selfishness, lust and pleasure. In short, only a man with such qualities can be an infallible Imam. The Prophet according to Quranic verse was a ruler, commander and governor of Muslims. He was their politician, judge and arbitrator. If all verses descended in this regard are scrutinized, it will come to light that the Prophet was an absolute undisputed ruler, an arbitrator and a judge of Muslim Ummah. He was a rightful politician too. When we pay visit in a form of pilgrimage to Imam in his shrine we read in the text of pilgrim devotions (Ziarat Jame Kabeera) – “…politicians of the people.” The Imam performs the duties of the Prophet. The Imam performs the job of government and judiciary. He stands parallel to the Prophet. As we pointed above, he must be having the same qualities, the Prophet had. All rules, commandments and details of religion must be known to him. Similarly, he must be infallible like the Prophet, far from faults, remote from wrongs, pure and purged of sins. If Imam wants to administer his government in a different way, there will be no issue of Caliphate or succeeding the Prophet. It will be a government like other governments. It is obvious that the Imam whom God appoints is to fill the gap created by the death of Prophet. The Prophet ruled on the basis of divine laws. He did not commit mistake or go astray in applying laws of God whatever subject or case might have been. Therefore, his government was in fact the mirror of this Quranic verse: “And rule among the people with truth and do not obey the (personal) lust.” Now passing away of Prophet has created a vacuum that cannot be filled by anyone who has no knowledge of all the rules. Their ignorance in the events of any problem pushed them here and there to beg for a solution. What an agony it is when no goal obtained, he takes shelter in his own conjecture. Therefore, the file of their life is full of mistakes, errors, wrongs and faults; all dangerous and harmful. How to fill such a deep crack and crevice; and who is to fill it? He must be of highest spirit in position; a copy of the Prophet – having knowledge of each branch and side of Islam, He must be able to solve difficulties and problems without making mistakes. It is quite apparent that ordinary persons cannot fill the gap nor can they continue the Message brought down by the Prophet. Therefore it is here the presence of an Infallible Imam becomes necessary and a need to tread the path of the Prophet. Imam is a need to be in place of the Prophet to carry out his duties and make restrictions and prohibitions prescribed by God and conveyed by Prophet.”57

Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari in this respect writes:

“Prophethood itself is a reality containing thousands of issues. The presence of Prophet suffices people from having anyone else to govern them. Imamate in Shia school entails prophethood. However it is higher than prophethood. It is such a fact we have accepted. As long as the Prophet exists, there is no saying as to who should be the ruler. The reason is the Prophet enjoys a status beyond people. Likewise, as long as Imam exists, there is no question of who must be the ruler. In Shia school, Imamate is a phenomenon and stretched entity of prophethood at its highest grades.”58

“From Shia outlook, the issue of rulership in the period of Imam is like rulership in the time of the Prophet. In other words, it is an exception. With the supposition of existence or presence of Imam in consideration of the extent of Shia belief; the issue of rulership also becomes a branch issue – depending on other issues.”59

Reminder

There is another criticism with regard to inadvertency towards standard, sincerity and originality of this thought. Distance has been taken from spirit of Islam and its social teaching; because:

“Separation between these two positions actually is a sort of Christianity on tongues of those who share this theory. This is a deviated constitution of Christianity of today, which says: I hand over affairs of Caesar to Caesar himself. This is not an Islamic constitution. All its regulations and laws reflect one system overall compressing all material and moral aspects sufficient to cater to needs of human beings in social, conduct and character, political and economical fields.

The constitution of Islam and its root frames the regulations of human policy, which is to administer Islamic social affairs. The station of moral leadership cannot be separated from government and political rule. Some among open-minded ones in the past and present consider it as a necessity to divide or separate the two, i.e. Caliphs and Infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet as it is the only way of unity between Shia and Sunni. The government must be the lot of Caliphs and moral leadership on the part of Infallible Ahlul Bayt. By this way alone, dispute lasting a thousand and four hundred years can be brought to an end. By so doing Muslims can stand against the imperialism of East and West with strength and unity.

But this very thought is a mistake. The sum of this unity is constituted by a wrong consideration, which rather reflects a kind of Christianity or secularism. Why at all should we separate these two offices, which is against Quranic verse? Why at all, should it be divided like sacrificed meat?”60

“The Holy Quran clearly says about Prophet Lut and Prophet Joseph: We gave to them rulership and command. About Prophet Dawood, Quran says: We gave him judgment and power of arbitration. About Prophet Sulaiman the Holy Quran narrates his government. Likewise, about Talut too talks of his government and that he had other distinctions. Therefore it shows that divine prophets are founders of divine governments on the earth and executors of divine authority.”61

“There is no denying the fact that the Prophet, besides being a ruler of masses was ruler of people also. He was a spiritual leader as well as a moral guide. There are verses of Quran, texts of Islam and historical evidences that narrate that the Prophet laid the foundation of Islamic government. He took the responsibility of all affairs as a real ruler does. Islam obtained expansion at…teaching of constitution of monotheism and legislating laws at the invitation for holy war and extensive military training among masses in addition to teachings laws particular to Jihad.

The training of defense was made common among the people. Besides, personal physical participation of the Prophet in twenty-seven battles and appointment of captains and brigadiers for fifty-five brigades showed the government’s face. In addition to this, it went as far as to establish that the Prophet’s call was not only spiritual. Likewise, his leadership was not only confined to convey divine decrees or religious messages through advices, admonishments or preaching. His orders were obeyed because of his capacity of a ruler and commander-in-chief of the army. In doing thus he safeguarded his Ummah from harm of enemies and protected the Message and Book of God from all perversions and deviations. He stood security to execute divine laws in a human society.62 The financial system of Islam is the most obvious evidence to prove that Islam is a complete and consummate model to run a society. The system was complete and nothing was short in it. Every core and corner of human field in a society has not escaped the care and attention of the system. It attended and answered all human needs that a society could possibly have. The way this system has chosen to attain this goal is to enjoin people to do what is good, i.e. to bind themselves to good. Similarly to avoid doing bad, being hurtful to self and others is prohibited. All laws and regulations the Prophet established show a thorough and a deep study of society. Then the Prophet laid its foundation which swiftly took root in society.63 Apart from being political head of government, the Prophet was a spokesman of divine or heavenly laws and a commentator expounding and explaining contents of Quranic verses. In short, he was a coach for God’s words and a teacher to teach the Book of God.64

The Prophet in his life held these two positions (i.e. head of the government and conveyor of Divine Message.) After passing away of Prophet, a vacancy arose for position of the Prophet. As such, the Islamic society needed one to fill the position of Prophet to carry out duties related with this position.

Now the question is to see who is qualified to take over the charge. Who has those qualities to occupy the two vacant offices?

It is quite clear and hence conceivable that the job of preaching to the people and guidance of masses to acquaint them with Divine laws; as to what is allowed and what prohibited and to encourage the society to high morals and demeanor befitting human beings can only be undertaken by those who are safeguarded from sins, protected from faults and are themselves infallible. They can control their own self. Besides, knowledge of everything rests with them. An absolute leader of the people cannot be otherwise. His conduct and character, his words and deeds become a model for masses to follow. Such a one must be pious without a margin of sin, forgetfulness, fault or error. We call this quality Ismat; that is infallibility. At the same time, he must have knowledge of every science. This is impossible unless God has vested his bosom with His knowledge.65

In brief, leader of Islamic society should be well versed with fundamentals, principles, branches and side rules and constitution of Faith. Otherwise he cannot be a divine spokesman over the earth and leader from God to His creatures. He cannot be, likewise, an absolute guide without being infallible.”66

Another Criticism

There is another point, which should not be far from sight. These conjectures are harmful to the extent of irretrievability to framework of Shia belief. However, they put the next generation into doubt with regard to separation of right from wrong. From another aspect, it encourages propaganda of a thought, which can be named ‘separation of faith from politics’.

“Islam is a compendious and complete constitution consisting of all aspects of human life – the open and hidden ones. Islam has brought a new system with a new thought. As it is a school of moral and civilization at the same time, it is a social and political system. Islam gives meaning to matter, makes the hidden apparent and obvious, frames the next world in this world, houses the essence in a shell and preserves seed in a pod. Deviation of Caliphate and rulership from its original track is tantamount to make Caliphate a pod without a seed or a shell without kernel…

So it was at this point that politics were separated from piety or being bound to a religion. As a result, those who were heirs of Islam and guards of moral heritage were sidelined.67 They had no say in affairs. Those at the helm of affairs were strangers to spirit of Islam.68 They could only run the legislature apparent to the eyes. From this one can understand the fatal hit that hurt the body of Islam. It started the day politics were separated from faith.69

This was the greatest danger to Islamic world and to those who aspire expansion and advancement of Islam should rely on unification of politics and faith. These two are like spirit and body. The spirit and body, this pulp and shell should get together with each other. Islam has paid much care with regard to politics, rulership, holy war, political laws and preserving the heritage of Islam. If this is separated from this pulp, the pulp will rot while the shell will dry up…”70

The Result

“The issue of Imamate from the aspect of leadership and rulership is such: Now presently there exists an infallible exactly like the person of the Prophet. The Prophet, at the behest by God, has introduced and identified to us his successor. His successor is above the level of ordinary people. As far as qualities and qualifications are concerned he is exceptional like the Prophet. Therefore in this case there is no question of consultation, election or committee.

In the days of the Prophet, there was nothing of these words such as: the Prophet is only a Messenger. Divine revelation descends on him. Responsibility of government rests with a consulting committee. People should vote whether the Prophet must be the ruler or someone else. In fact, the people had some other trend in their thought. In spite of being a Prophet and being above level of a human and having a link with unseen world of revelation nobody raised this question of an executive of the government. Now too (after his death) there is no necessity for such words. The Prophet had twelve successors. In their existence, there remains no ground for election, consultation and selection.

Having had an infallible one, with knowledge of everything, who does not mistake; rather no possibility of error can be attributed to him, should we go after an ordinary man?

The position of Ali’s Imamate was in the sense we said above that Ali was already an Imam in the sense of the word. So naturally all by itself leadership or administration of the government too will have to be his lot. The Prophet had issued statements in this regard. The Prophet described Ali’s position because the other position (Imamate) was his…”71

Because:

“Imamate is a pillar of Shia belief. A branch of Imamate is rulership. When an Imam is present, i.e. in existence of an infallible Imam the right of rulership goes to no one as it was with the Prophet. In the time of his existence, no one had the right to run the government. The Prophet, at the command of God, had appointed Ali for Imamate. Rulership is joined to Imamate. The necessity of Imamate is administration also.72 In some instances, the Prophet appointed Ali to administration on the basis and standard of Imamate. The base he held was Imamate but he said: He (Ali) is the Imam after me.”73

Therefore:

“Imamate among Shia is regarded above rulership. Rulership becomes one of the affairs of Imamate. The explanation of Islam, the decrees and its rulings occupy a level, which must be Infallible. It cannot be otherwise.

We say one of the functions of the Prophet was rulership. Rulership not from the side of people nor was it a people’s right to give him rulership. This rulership was one, which God had bestowed on him. The reason was that the Prophet was above human beings. In other words, he was a teacher of divine laws and rules besides his link with the unseen world. He had rulership over the people. Among Shias, there is another issue. If that issue is established, rulership itself will be established. We believe a position entailing that of prophethood. In existence and presence of that position, rulership is itself contained therein.

Likewise, when the Prophet was present, question of rulership was contained within. As such when an Imam exists, of course at the level Shias stress on, the question of rulership is clear and a settled one.”74

Second Batch: To Show Rulership Of Less Value Than Imamate

Introduction

Now it is the turn to answer the second category of conjectures having had replied the conjecture of separation of Imamate from rulership. This conjecture too is in the same dimension with the same aim; that is to prove existence of good terms between the Imam and Caliphs.

This conjecture can be framed in the mold of following expressions:

“The office of Guardianship vested to Ali by God and Prophet according to texts and verses is so high that worldly offices and elected Caliphates before it are like polluted water with a putrid stench or a morsel that suffocates the throat or a worn out shoe or nasal liquid. It is so worthless and of such low value.”!75

“He was in background the Prophet’s successor Waliullah (i.e. God’s friend) and Caliph of God. His dignity and status was so high as not to let him compete for worldly Caliphate.”!76

“Ali was the successor of the Prophet according to Quranic verses and Prophet’s confirmations on several occasions. But his spirit was so high that he saw the office of Caliphate too little that he himself says: “Rulership over people to me is like polluted water with a putrid stench or like a morsel that suffocates the throat. Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr for a period. But his generous forgiving nature made him to pay allegiance.”!77

In the last narration, it appears that the author of the article is prone to believe that Caliphate is separate from rulership. In accordance with this belief, he argues the worthlessness of Caliphate. He then stresses on this point that both (Caliphate and rulership) are undisputed rights of Ali. As he proceeds, he shows the worthlessness of this position before the high spirit of Ali. However in any case, it does not mean that Ali overlooked the crime of usurpation of his right or forgave the usurper, finally, there did not last peace between him and transgressors of his right.78 It is an obvious fact that such a type of outlook towards rulership will result once more in wrong conclusions. Such as, he willingly paid allegiance to Caliphs!

A) Caliphs are shown as if they were not transgressors of Ali’s right, or they did not usurp Ali’s right to Caliphate.

B) Ali too did not carry any rancor against them.

C) He further says that peace and good terms lasted between the Imam and Caliphs.

“He wanted rulership to serve religion and establish justice. Otherwise he regarded rulership far lesser than the worth of his old worn-out shoes.”!79

Criticism And Analysis

As could be noted:

“He has brought down Imamate to rulership and administration either deliberately or unintentionally. It should not be forgotten that such a discussion results in scientific negligence, which cannot be accepted besides its entailing corruption in drawing conclusions. The outcome can be only an imaginative unity. The statement says that Imamate and Wilayat are two aspects – one moral and the other rulership. Then assertions are made that the first one cannot be usurped80 while the second is not so important. In the narration of the word of Ali, a word is changed; that is Guardianship instead of rulership. Intentionally it is changed to create a short cut towards unity.”81

Another point that should be made here is:

Caliphate and rulership are positions given by God. This furnishes a suitable ground for guidance and perfection and prosperity of this world and the next. It drives the society towards resurrection. Such a type of rulership cannot be worthless for Ali. If it be so, it means: Ali paid little or no attention to his duties because it is coherent with the position God has installed Ali in.

The office of Guardianship does not necessarily depend on rulership, which too must be in possession. The Imam under responsibility of Guardianship discharges his duty of guidance to people. But the fact should be noted that rulership provides an easier ground to achieve the goal of Guardianship to the extent of perfection that is expected by the appearance of the present Imam.

Rulership, which they usurped from Ali, was on the ground of their denial of Imamate and Wilayat of Ali. This denial gives birth to a denial that stretches in the whole Ummah and totally forgets its turning away from the Imam who is a door of guidance and resurrection in the next world.

The world from the viewpoint of Ali is worthless. Likewise is rulership that aims world. Sunnis have said thus about Caliphate. Rulership gives meaning to Ali when he can serve the truth and justice and enable him to eradicate wrong.

In other words, Caliphate and rulership lose their attraction to Ali when they serve selfish motives or go astray from God’s will. Throughout the period of three Caliphs, this type of rulership had imprinted a sketch in the minds of people.

In fact they took rulership for granted to hoard worldly and material gain.

It was exactly on this wrong outlook that the Ummah got tired of injustice and partialities of Uthman. They saw no way but to turn to Ali. So they returned to Ali.

They returned not because Ali was the person whom the Prophet had introduced as one appointed by God to the leadership of Islamic society. They returned because Ali was selected by companions who wanted to establish justice. This clearly shows that they had already forgotten the divine verse for Ali’s leadership.

The government, which Ali was called upon to form was a display of Ali’s wisdom in executing divine orders. At the same time, the previous three regimes also were a demonstration of their denial of Ali’s right of Guardianship and Imamate and usurpation of his rights.

Therefore it is clear that rulership founded on such base has no value to Ali. However Ali exerted his efforts and tried repeatedly to take back his usurped right. This was silenced by an attack on Fatima’s house, the only daughter of the Prophet.

Second Alteration: Removing Imamate From Principles Of Faith And Making It A Fundamental Of School

Introduction

Pay attention to this objection:

“…Difference in Imamate is not a difference in principle of faith. Since our childhood, we are taught that principles of faith are three and fundamentals of school are two. Principles of faith are separate from fundamentals of school.”!82

One of the mode of dividing which has no root in Islamic teachings but today it is commonly used – separation of arguments of belief in principles of faith and fundamentals of school or in terms of unity-seekers – separation in real issues (common ones) and the side ones (i.e. those of Ijtihaad).

It so seems that this way of dividing might have originated in thought of Islamic unity. Or it should have much utility and usefulness in this path. Depending on this order discussion of Imamate has been discarded from comprising main and basic issues of Islam while, on the other hand the subject of Imamate constitutes the ground for difference between two schools – that of the Prophet’s House and that of Caliphs. It is brought down to a side matter. Therefore the different views in this regard becomeIjtihaads, i.e. personal opinions based on personal conclusions. As such, it is by itself in the margin – not in the contents, beyond frontiers of principle which are common among Islamic sects.

So it is said:

“Islamic Caliphate comes among common principles because it carries rulership. Therefore politics is among pillars of Islam. As a result there needs to be an executive or administrator. But the discussion takes a detailed length to the effect to make it a branch subject not to be treated as incoherent with the principle…

For instance, Shia and Sunni differ from each other on application of the term. They had disputes on this issue as to whom should be applied the term of Caliph. This shows real Caliphate and politics as an entity that stands by itself. It is an outstanding issue; an element of its own independent base. Strange it is that who should take charge of Caliphate must be a side discussion, a branch argument!”83

“Some narrations about Guardianship are in the same trend and sense which are particular to Shia. Yet, Guardianship in that sense becomes a side matter pertaining to belief.”!84

“In my view those who today say that there is no politics or rulership are more astrayed than those who deny immediate succession of Ali to Caliphate.”!85

Unity-seekers by posing such divisions can very easily set aside a far margin to this discussion of Imamate, which is the main and most important difference of belief among sects of Islam. Their pretext is – a principle of faith, of Ijtihaad or a branch issue and so forth.

So it is said:

“The other issues wherein runs difference among religions are among principles. Every school has a fundamental for itself.”86

However in each sect such side belief, not the basic ones, that have no relation with fundamental issues of Islam, can be found.

Thus it is said:

“The subject of supreme leadership of Muslims was the element that gave blow in the beginning to body of Islam. It hurt the united rows of Islam. Since this was among the second grade of issues, it did not create controversy with unity of principle and purpose. The difference exited therein was hurtful to unity of Muslims.”87

In other words, Imamate against the principle of faith is only a branch of belief. Therefore it is on this ground that Islam does not acknowledge it as a valid principle!

On the other side, this type of division (or dividing) displays all Islamic sects in basic issues and joint principles of faith of Islam; and makes all to benefit by the link with the root of Islam!88

In this way another step is taken towards unity.

So it is said:

“What Islam regards valid among principle and branches89 one should believe therein. He is a Muslim. Those principles are three: Monotheism, Prophethood and Day of Resurrection…

So Imamate is not from principles of Islam. It is from principles of Shia faith, He who denies this, if he believes in three said principles, (Monotheism, Prophethood and Resurrection) is a Muslim but not Shia.90”!91

“Imamate is from fundamentals of school, not from principles of faith. Denial of this principle does not become a reason for the denier to be treated out of Islam…”!92

In one comprehensive glance it can be said:

After the last commentary on separation of Imamate and Caliphate:

“Commentary of second kind towards co-ordination and nearness in the most important matter of difference Imamate; Muhammad Jawad Mughnia has written an essay on it. He says Imamate is not from principles of Islam. It is the base of Shia faith and its essentiality, which returns to principles.”!93

Criticism And Analysis

The body and structure of Islam is in discussion. Its teachings can be divided into two entities – the lower structure and the above structure. In this division, some teachings of faith including obligations or duties and those of beliefs in relation to all teachings of conduct or of belief housed in the lower structure. These are called basics of Islam or basis of faith in narrations of infallible Ahlul Bayt. The sense of this is totally other than the common description as principles of faith.

On this basis, that batch of teachings of faith is called base or principle of faith. The root or construction of Islam rests on that. Not because outer belief – even its contents – is common with Islamic sects, are called principles of faith.

On the basis of what we said, Shia believes that Imamate is part of principles and pillars of faith. In faith of Islam the element of Imamate is the fundamental of the foundation.

Here we quote some writings of Shia scholars:

“The reality of a thing is its own base and root. Its structure is built on it – i.e. on its base and on its own root. Therefore principle of faith is that on which faith is built or stands thereon. Such it is to believe in Imamate; Quran and traditions support this.”94

“Imamate and leadership of religion in Shia school is a part of principle from view of essentiality of belief. It stands in the row of Monotheism, Prophethood and Day of Judgment.”95

“When we Shias want to describe principles of faith on the basis of religion we count it as a part of principle.”96

“We believe that Imamate is one of the principles. Faith without belief in it is incomplete.”97

“No doubt that the only way to reach true elements of knowledge (science of knowledge) is to dive into contents of religion to obtain pearls of knowledge the Prophet has pointed to us.

It is only when we understand the directions of the Prophet regarding adherence to Imamate, which is viewed by the Prophet as an important pillar of the very structure itself. The Prophet goes even further. He says one must know his Imam in his lifetime. If one died without recognizing the Imam during his lifetime, it is as if he died in ignorance (pagan’s death).

That is, such a person has not understood the reality of monotheism, revelation and prophethood of the prophets and is not blessed by heavenly guidance of Quran and his life had not been Islamic and Quranic even though he might have believed in all true beliefs and had been imbued with all distinctive qualities and no matter how punctual he might have been in his life in discharging religious obligations such as prayers, fasting, Hajj, Zakat, fighting Jihad, has always attended mosque etc.”98

“The outcome is that: Belief in Guardianship and Imamate of Ali and other infallible Imams (his sons) is a backbone and worth bestowing element to all other principles of faith as well as character, conduct and deeds. Without that, faith with all its heads and titles has no divine validity nor is it of any value before God. It is like a zero which gets no value although several thousands zeros might stand in a row. A number must accompany a zero to get the value. Else, nobody will count zeros. Unless belief and deeds follow the fundamental of Imamate in the track of the Guardianship of Infallible Ahlul Bayt, God does not pay any heed nor do they get a place with him. Everything is gone without any return.”99

“This dividing line, which is a standard one, keeps belief in Guardianship and Imamate in a row with principles of faith. Some have erroneously concluded that: Belief in Imamate and Wilayat of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) is not among necessities of Islam. The belief in Islam is possible without that. On the other hand the holy verses prove other than this.

Therefore the subject of Guardianship is more obligatory and necessary than other obligations. It is more important before God than all duties. There is a point worth considering here. Among the five pillars: prayers, fasting, Zakat, Hajj and Guardianship only in four, excuse is justifiable. In four pillars excuse is accepted by God. The Prophet (the lawmaker) has given margin. For instance, in journeys prayers become short; likewise, fasting is avoided in sickness too. Zakat is not obligatory if one is financially not well off. Hajj is not binding if one is financially unable to do. But Guardianship of infallible Ahlul Bayt (‘a) is in no way exempted. It is a duty whatever conditions or circumstances be there one is bound to obey Imam and recognize him and be in his service. In their times, we shall be resurrected.”100

Third Alteration: Aim Of Eschewing Shia Teachings

Third Alteration : Aim Of Eschewing Shia Teachings 101

Introduction

In Islamic literature, Baraat (i.e. seeking distance from the enemies of Infallible Ahlul Bayt) is side by side with Tawalla (i.e. being friends with friends of Ahlul Bayt). It is in the row of Imamate and Wilayat of Ahlul Bayt (‘a).

Baraat from enemies of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) stands side by side with Guardianship. These two depend on each other. It is a need and necessity. Tawalla is in meaning of belief in Imamate and Guardianship of Ahlul Bayt (‘a). It is a basic pillar of piety. It contains very important and great substance in it. In the issue of Baraat, to be religious or faithful cannot be possible without this.

The foundation and root of Tabarra is: To entertain no good terms at heart although at tongue you may agree with them. Who are they? They are deviated, perverted and astray in relation to Ahlul Bayt of Prophet – adversaries of them. In conversation to show you are displeased with them. In deed and action to be distant with them or to seek distance from their customs, meetings, taste and religion.

By existing or in presence of such a fundamental in faith how can it be said with regard to Godly figures or those who are so close to God and loved by God that they had friendly differences or had intimate conduct. How can they be friendly though in differences or intimate with enemies of religion of God?102 On the ground that a ranking implacability the Godly men do not have we cannot set aside or repudiate totally Baraat which is one of the pillars and fundamentals. It is not a personal matter or on personal interest. It is a God’s command, which should be obeyed as His other obligations. In Baraat, there is no selfish motive nor are there any personal tendencies. This obligation is based on divine decree. Its pivot is enmity and love with religion of God. We cannot be friendly with enemies of God. Likewise, we cannot be enemies with friends of God.

Baraat in no way is like worldly love and hatred. It is neither material nor personal. It cannot be compared with human psychological conditions, which occur daily in life of individuals.

It is only an effort to invalidate this fundamental of Baraat by using unsuitable words. As it is said, the word of truth is established by what is not true. Anyway, this fundamental is based on God’s order. From the other side, being a religious one is possible by knowing the guidance. To attain guidance compulsorily one should know the astray too. One should know those who created innovations in religion.

It is also necessary to know what those innovations in religion are. Then only can we separate faith from that which is not faith.

If we want to attain correct faith, to get a correct way of worship to God, we should know enemies of faith. We must know their role in deviating people from religion. And we should convey our knowledge in this regard to others too.

In fact it is necessary to know the astray-going and perversions from real faith. To know leaders of misguidance is necessary. Then we must introduce them to Islamic society. By so doing we can rescue ourselves from going wrong. We can be aloof from them, which is necessary.

Designing such discussions is a need towards researching knowledge of religion and understanding Islamic truths. It cannot be called as an insult, an abuse or foul language. This has been made an excuse so that an advantage could be drawn therefrom and which is to close such discussions once and for all. The results of such discussion are beneficial. They want to deprive others of it.

A question that arises in the mind is that:

Unity-seekers have stepped far beyond frontiers of political unity. Practically they have plunged into Sunni beliefs. They have done this for sake of Islamic Unity; and they are moving fast in that direction. Now what are those conjectures left for them to convey or propagate that they try to delete and rescind this fundamental of Baraat from Shia teachings?

In reply it can be said:

So far whatever is said toward trend of knowledge and civilization for creating Islamic unity and put before criticism and analysis and evaluation, five main pivots can be found in the thought and view of extremists among unity-seekers. And these five pivots in the end either directly or indirectly contradict fundamentals of Baraat. These five pivots are:

A – Taking Benefit Of A Deviated Thought, Silence, An Excuse To Maintain Islamic Demeanor?

It is thus said that:

“Is it possible to insult sanctities of one milliard Muslims and at the same time claim unity of Islam?”!103

“No logic gives way nor allows reason in our being free to insult heads of Sunni sect using our public media and taking into service writers and speakers.

If we aim for oneness and unity of hearts we must abolish our practice from radio, television, meetings and gatherings and pulpits; whatever from these platforms is said and which wounds and injures feelings of Sunnis. Such a thing should be prohibited.”!104

“To make insults, to be brazen faced and to fabricate statements or traditions which later can be attributed to the Prophet in vilification of leaders of Islam and breach sanctities of Islamic personalities respected by a milliard Muslims – is it a principle of Shia faith?”!105

“Scolding, abusing and using foul language against those who have a position of respect and reverence among Muslims is against decorum and demeanor. It is an undesired, impolite and an indecent act and Imams of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) have prohibited it.”!106

B – To Show Differences Between Ali And Caliphs As Friendly

They say:

“Whatever passed in the early of days of Islam and whatever passed after passing away of Prophet between Ali and reputed companions (of the Prophet) it was certainly kind of friendly differences…”107

“What I oppose is …changing in a statement, friendly differences that existed between Hazrat Ali (‘a) and companions of Prophet into inimical differences.”!108

C – Denial Of Enmity In A Sense Of Blame, To Show Relations Were Intimate Between Ali And Caliph

Thus it is said:

“If be it compelling that our outer and inner phases should be different and our account in relation to early days of Islam is not clear before ourselves and God and we wish to stress on unity for the sake of interests and we think as if there existed enmity between Ali and Caliphs, we achieve nothing…”!109

“As far as it concerns Ali and the three Caliphs particularly to Ali, he never behaved with his competitors inimically.”!110

“Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies of each other.”!111

D – To Show Rulership Worthless From Ali’s Viewpoint

They say:

“Ali regarded power (executive) far below a worn-out shoe; on this score he cannot harbor avarice against Muslims.”!112

“Ali was so high that he could not entertain hatred against any on account of an unworthy matter.”!113

“The spirit of Ali was so high that he could not yield to hate a Muslim on ground of a worldly position.”!114

E – Mending The Method Of Shia Propaganda

They say:

“Our difficulty is in the method of our propaganda. The method that we have to describe Shiaism is in the first place a curse to Caliphs and companions. Therefore we can never make any progress”!115

Closing Reminder

Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi writes:

“We know since the Ummah attributed by Islam and Quran, faces a joint enemy who wants to destroy the very foundation of religion reason dictates that the whole Ummah together with Shia and Sunni should campaign united in one row to defend existence of religion and themselves.

However this does not necessitate Shias to withdraw issue of Tawalla and Baraat. These two fundamentals are like life and death of Islam with Shias. It does not mean showing leniency to adversaries. At the stage of argument and research, or at the stage of preaching and propaganda in public meetings and common medias, or in position of teaching in educational centre and training of children and youths it must be maintained that belief of the other side should be respected. Unity must be preserved from getting injured. True belief could be kept untold. These are the stations where frankness and openness in speech could prove hurtful. Hence could be refrained. The next generation regarding the belief will remain in suspect and surmise.”116

“Very seriously, we must be mindful and closely advertent of Satan to not mislead us. There might appear many titles such as unity, co-ordination, respect to Islamic brotherhood and so forth. To take up common issues and leave singular elements, which are attractive of appearance but should not spoil the glitter of the pearl of our faith. Special care should be taken to see that pillars of faith among young generation might not be shaken or even destroyed. The matter of political unity may not be turned into a unity of beliefs. And by sorting, they could easily project the real, original and correct Islam in two wings – Shia and Sunni – in the minds of plain-hearted people who have no real information in the field. And both those wings are not real and although they would introduce to them as correct and original Islam of true and right path. Ultimately and consequently, the two main pillars of Baraat and Tawalla will fade out and decay totally. As such, the real Islam of Prophet Muhammad will vanish from the minds of Shias. Islam will fall down when these basic pillars have fallen. The eternal life of man will be exchanged at a very low cost that is the expansion of Islam and a long stretch of its government and political advances. All this is only fancy and imagination.”117

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 218.

- 2. Ibid. Article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Hindrances’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 256.

- 3. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 18.

- 4. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 14.

- 5. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 19.

- 6. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 19.

- 7. Inner guardianship.

- 8. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20.

- 9. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 217; Narrators of his outlook: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 23; Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 76, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

- 10. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pgs. 218-223.

- 11. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219.

- 12. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias.

- 13. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 158.

- 14. Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani.

- 15. The above analysis is also explained as follows: The authority in learning and knowledge of Imam Ali was already known and recognized by Caliphs and they had accepted it. (Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16)

- 16. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring and Summer 80, Pg. 20.

- 17. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Preface to the 2nd Edition), Pg. 10.

- 18. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 20.

- 19. Ibid. Vol. 5, Pg. 22.

- 20. Ibid. Vol. 6, Pg. 16.

- 21. Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 14.

- 22. Ibid. Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 23. The correct Bayyat is one that is given with willingness and desire of the person. Else, it is only a handshake. Or it can be named as an outer show. The acknowledgement of Ali took six months to take place. And it took place under hatred and application of force. It was actually a handshake. (Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah Pg. 116)
For better and wider comprehension of Bayyat and conditions that surrounded it, refer to Chap. 1 of Vol. 4 of this book.

- 24. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.

- 25. On the basis of Shia Belief the foundation of Islam is Imamate and Wilayat.

- 26. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Preface to the 3rd Edition, Pg. 11.

- 27. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.

- 28. Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 167.

- 29. Ibid. 5 Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.

- 30. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pg. 22.

- 31. Ibid. Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg. 14-15.

- 32. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pg. 15.

- 33. It is interesting that in the explanation of his outlook it is said: “He claims that there are religious proofs to support this separation!” (Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat, Pg. 216).

- 34. This article by Muhammad Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has been translated and the contents are approved by him. In this writing we shall deal with the translator’s extensive thought by way of completion of the above outlook.

- 35. Muhammad Madani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 90.

- 36. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176.

- 37. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 222.

- 38. We shall answer this objection separately.

- 39. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 25.

- 40. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 41. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Translation of article, ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ by Shaykh Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Pg. 218.

- 42. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Pg. 219

- 43. Refer: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63-78.

- 44. Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 255 onwards.

- 45. Ibid. Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (3rd Edition 1377) Pg. 257-258.

- 46. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, (1st Edition 1380) Vol. 1, Pg. 63.

- 47. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 72.

- 48. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 74.

- 49. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 67.

- 50. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 64.

- 51. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 63.

- 52. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 78.

- 53. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 70.

- 54. Ibid. Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 64.

- 55. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pg. 20.

- 56. Ibid. Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pg. 3.

- 57. Ibid. Pg. 142- 146.

- 58. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 162-163.

- 59. Ibid. Pg. 147.

- 60. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pgs. 102-103.

- 61. Ibid. Pg. 96.

- 62. In other words, the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (S) and the Imamate of His Eminence Ali (‘a) have been always together as power of executive and the position of their Wilayat cannot be separated from the power of executive.

- 63. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.

- 64. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.

- 65. Ibid. Pgs. 94-97.

- 66. Ibid. Pg. 98.

- 67. Imams (‘a).

- 68. Usurpers of caliphate.

- 69. Since Saqifah.

- 70. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 31-32.

- 71. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 80-81.

- 72. That is rulership is included among the duties of the Imams.

- 73. Ibid. Pg. 81.

- 74. Ibid. Pgs. 112-113.

- 75. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 8.

- 76. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 12.

- 77. Ibid. Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.

- 78. He who entertains this outlook has termed the bitterness as a enmity Ali had against the Caliph. This term is not suitable concerning the personality of Ali. Bitterness is possible to have, but he could not be implacable because it is not a good quality. (We shall dwell on this subject in more detail).

- 79. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue no. 26 Khordad 1379.

- 80. It should not be forgotten that this is occasion for denial.

- 81. Dr. Jawad Muhaddaseen: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue 8, Bahman 1379.

- 82. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat (Message of Unity), Pg. 258.

- 83. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pgs. 12, 13, 18.

- 84. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 18.

- 85. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9-10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 86. Ibid. Nida-e-Wahdat (Call for Unity), Pg. 27.

- 87. Muhammad Moheet Tabatabai: Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi wa Beedaari-e-Mashriq-e-Zameen (Awakening of Eastern land), Pg. 169.

- 88. To get acquainted with other Islamic faiths refer to the book The lost Truth by Shaykh Mostasim Sayyid Ahmad. He has written this (above named) book after having been guided to the right faith of Shia 12 Imami.

- 89. The essential branches of faith are – on which all Islamic faiths agree – obligation for performing prayers, fasting, Hajj and illegality of marriage with mother, sister and so on. (Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects).)

- 90. With reference to discussion about principles of faith and Islam it cannot be used to justify marginalization of Imamate.

- 91. Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects). This translation is quoted from the article: ‘Elements of Islamic Unity and its Obstacles’ quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat (Pgs. 224-225).

- 92. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tashayyo-e-Alawi o Tashayyo-e-Safavi Alawite Shiaism and Safavid Shiaism (Collected Writings 9) Pg. 75, quoted from statement about belief of Alawite Shias by Shaykh Muhammad Jawad Mughnia: Article: ‘Zaroorihai Deen-o-Mazhab’ (Essentialities of faith and religion) quoted in the book Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects)

- 93. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 204.

- 94. Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Muzaffar: Dalailus Sidq (Proofs of Truth), Vol. 2, Pg. 29.

- 95. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pg. 3.

- 96. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 45.

- 97. Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Reza Muzaffar: Aqaid al-Imamiyah (Faith of Shia Islam), Pg. 93.

- 98. Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 131-132.

- 99. Ibid. Pgs. 146-147.

- 100. Dr. Hadi Ghandhari: Aathaar-e-Itiqaad Ba Imam-e-Zamaan (Signs of Belief in the present Imam) Pgs. 11-13.

- 101. Note: The contents in the above introduction are taken from two valuable books: 1. Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge) by Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi and 2. Marefat-e-Imam-e-Asr (a.t.f.s.), (Knowing the Imam of the Age) by Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Bani Hashimi.

- 102. Hatred and enmity is not a good quality for believers but it is not so towards enemies of faith.

- 103. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 104. Ibid. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pgs. 62-64.

- 105. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 8, Bahman 1379.

- 106. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Payaam-e-Wahdat (Message of Unity), Pg. 274.

- 107. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 108. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 109. Ibid. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pg. 62.

- 110. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 111. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 112. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 113. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22.

- 114. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 11.

- 115. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 26.

- 116. Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 154-158.

- 117. Ibid. Pg. 157.

Discourse 6: Deviation In The Meaning Of Divinely-Granted Caliphate Of Ali

Introduction

It is a sad and painful incident of deviation in Shia belief. The purpose was Islamic unity. Political and social movement of Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi was the impetus and it was his idea that gave beginning to utterances like:

“The difference of the names of Ali and Umar should be set aside and attention must be directed to Caliphate.”1

Vast endeavors and extensive efforts of pupils and followers of School of Sayyid Jamal for putting into practice his aspirations have been silenced. It was a desire for an extensive Islamic Caliphate. Today there is no word of it except that:

“…The system of Caliphate with Sunni sect can be a ground for oneness of Muslims and all Muslim countries…”2

From one side followers of this thought and belief for attaining Islamic unity under a title of only way for pacifying and appeasing Shia-Sunni differences met with a hot welcome. This has been continuing since the time of Mashrota until today.

With attention to Sunni School in subject of Imamate and Caliphate in its prime stage, elements present in this school had to undergo a total purge. The very same thoughts of Sunni School in this ground among Shias were not common and were under a heavy criticism.

The purging elements related to this system of thought provide room for pro-Sunni elements to creep in the folds of Shia beliefs. The sensitiveness of Shias with regard to argument of Imamate and Caliphate gave a hand too.

However this erroneous thought with a productive faculty of errors had one fruit. And that was an influence of deviation in belief of Imamate.

This deviation gradually progressed to the extent of overturning the meaning and sense of Imamate during the presence of infallible Imams. Its black, dark shadow was cast on the Sun of Ghadeer and Caliphate of Ali. It took to itself various tendencies to an extent that even today we witness its deviation and wrong thinking in new molds and new models.

Criticism And Analysis

A walk into the park of thought of this group of continuing ‘Imamate and Caliphate’ and then a comparison of it with institute of Sunni thought3 in this subject takes us to elements common in the outlooks of unity-seekers and Sunni beliefs4 which are as follows:

First Conjecture: Imamate And Guardianship In Islam Are Only For The Sake Of Rulership!

In this respect, they say:

“In the pure and noble faith of Islam the subject of Imamate is not regarded as a part of the business to impart duties of administration, government, political and social affairs in the administration.”!5

“Imamate is the same authority and the run of political affairs of Islamic Ummah.”!6

“In Islam Imam means head of the government. His duties are repeatedly mentioned.”!7

“The dispute between Shia and Sunni which has been continuing since centuries is on the issue of rulership.”!8

“The holder of order (or the head) and the Islamic ruler means the executors of these two verses of Quran which is the duty on the part of Islamic governor…
If the Islamic Governor executes an Islamic order, the title ‘the head of affairs’ (Wali-e-Amr) can be applied to him.”!9

“The executor of Islamic rules is called ‘head of affairs (Wali-e-Amr).”!10

Second Conjecture: Rulership In Islam Is An Elected Post!

They say:

“The choice of appointing the ruler after passing away of Prophet is in the hands of people. It is not even in the hand of the Prophet.”!11

“The choice of the ruler is an acknowledged right of the Ummah.”!12

“To select an Imam is a special right of the people.”!13

“The chief executive of Muslims is electoral. The qualities of this post are specified in Quran. Muslim in each term should select one according to these specifications.”!14

“To select ‘the head of affairs’ (Wali-e-Amr) is a fixed right of the people. According to specifications, his duties are subsidiary. It remains as long as Quran exists.”!15

“To maintain a Quranic government is a responsibility on all Muslims. The ruler of Muslims is selected among them with opinion of masses.”!16

“The issue of Caliphate is a national issue. To fix a ruler is in the hands of the people.”!17

“The public opinion in an Islamic government is a basic element for appointing the ruler.”!18

“People have a right to appoint a person who possesses conditions befitting a ruler to the post of a guardian and vest him with rulership.”!19

How To Utilize These Conjectures To Create Deviation In The Meaning Of Divinely-Given Caliphate Of Ali

So far we came to know how unity-seekers borrowed the thought from Sunni school and how they exerted efforts toward dissipating Sunni outlook about Imamate, Guardianship and Caliphate. We also came to know their basic idea, which runs as follows:

“To bring down the high station of Imamate to the level of social status of rulership and to believe it to be electoral.”!

It is obvious that this outlook is useful for creating Islamic unity and to create a sort of coherence between the two. This idea avoids the contrast as it overruns the right of Ali to Caliphate.

From one side we witness deviation in the sense of Caliphate, which by the Quranic text is attributed to Ali; a deviation, which has found a place among Shias besides giving a covering to wrong and impure idea.

This deviation has started from two conjectures, which are:

Conjecture A: Deviation In The Sense Of Guardianship By Separating Imamate And Rulership

They say:

“We in very foundation consider infallible Imams as authority of God. We believe them as a guide to the people. We believe them as true narrators of God’s commandments and orders. We have faith in them as protectors of religion from any deviation or perversion. Besides, we trust them as true and correct interpreters of divine decrees and Quranic text and traditions of Prophet. As such, this position is far higher than Imamate in the sense of rulership. Of course in their presence it becomes obligatory on the Ummah to regard them as Caliphs and rulers and to obey them. If they did not attain place or position of Imamate the high office (of Imamate) is reserved and saved for them.”!20

“The position of leadership and guidance with the position of rulership and Guardianship are two.”!21

“This matter has no relation to issue of rulership.”!22

“Prophethood and Guardianship differ from each other in their sense and sum. Between Guardianship and Prophethood, difference is from earth to the sky. Prophethood is in the climes of the angelic domain while Guardianship is a social and democratic matter.”!23

Conjecture B: Deviation In The Sense Of Text Following Deviation In The Meaning Of Imamate

They say:

“The manifest religion of Islam has specified certain conditions for Imam. These conditions are necessary for guidance of people and executing divine rules by the ruler who in the religious terms is called Imam. The Islamic ruler should possess these conditions.

Knowledge, piety, decorum, courage, bravery and generosity are main conditions. The Prophet, from the very start, wanted that his religion should be established on a foundation, which could last as long the world exists. Ali whom friends and foes acknowledged as a perfect and most befitting person in the Ummah was introduced by the Prophet as Imam, ruler and a model. The Prophet asked Muslims to obey him. There are many tributes. A few can be referred here. The last of them is Ghadeer Khumm. The Prophet declared him (Ali) as his successor and Caliph after his death.”!24

“The biggest issue related to passing away of Prophet is his succession as a leader of Muslims like the Prophet. This matter is very much important particularly for people of thought and contemplation. Also it comes much in discussion. But more than people the Prophet himself, the great leader of Muslims, attaches much importance to it. To him it is a matter of life and death. In the matter of Caliphate, there are two very important things. One: Whose personality could be suitable and befitting to occupy the place of the Prophet?

The leader of Islam (the Prophet) has witnessed in the spirit of his cousin greatness and seraphic decorum. This quality he did not see in any of his companions whether related to him or otherwise. The genius and extraordinary capability and the holy wars fought sincerely became the ground for the Prophet to express his admiration for Ali in most brilliant words and appreciating language on many occasions. He praised Ali and showed his position to the people more magnified.”!25

“Although after passing away of Prophet, Muslims had a right to form a consulting council. However it was also a demanding matter to give consideration to his will in principle. If the purpose of forming a consulting council was to fulfill God’s decree who could be other than the Prophet himself who founded the school and brought the Message. He had named the candidate nominated by God.

The consulting body is to execute the will. When an issue is recommended by Prophet the task of consulting body becomes easy. The way too is shown to the body.”!26

Result Of This Manipulation

The divine Caliphate and the right of Ali according to the text of Quran and rightful belief of Shia in this respect is so interpreted, on the basis of opinion, that the right is overridden by wrong. The truth vanished in elected Caliphate. It is reduced to a rulership fabricated by wrong conclusions.

They say:

“There are several kinds of peoples’ governments. The leader loved by people is the tongue of the people. Whatever he says is the word of the heart of people and deserves to be appointed for succession. In such a case, the will of the people is acted upon. The pleasure and satisfaction of the people is gained. Such a selection secures peoples’ desire. The appointment of Ali in Ghadeer was such.”!27

Deviated Repercussion Of These Conjectures

Deviated Repercussion of these Conjectures 28

First Wrong Result: Caliphate Is Not A Monopoly Of Amirul Momineen (‘a)!

Caliphate is not a Monopoly of Amirul Momineen (‘a)! 29

So they have said:

“Conditions laid down in Islam for head of affairs (Wali-e-Amr) are briefed in this sentence. The most suitable and befitting person for the post of a ruler must be selected.”!30

“The infallible Imams have two positions. Most important of all is they are guides, leaders and authorities from God. They are chosen ones to interpret and explain God’s rulings, decrees and what descended on the Prophet.

The other one is rulership and Guardianship. It is compulsory upon the Ummah to pay allegiance to and obey them. Since they are superior in knowledge than all others, people must choose and obey them.”!31

“In this fact there is no doubt that Ali was the most deserving person to succeed the Prophet. Neither Shia nor Sunni have any doubt in this regard.”!32

“The person of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) was more deserving than others for rulership. It is not in the sense that Caliphate is his belonging nor in the sense that Caliphate is prohibited for others. But the sense here is eligibility and the qualities – in which he stands first and above all.”!33

Second Wrong Result: Caliph Cannot Be Exclusively Ali After The Prophet

They say:

“Rulership and Caliphate in the sense of administration, as it is said, is his (Ali’s) right. Inspite of his acceptance it is prohibited to others. However it is not such an important post.

Rather Caliphate and rulership is among his (Ali’s) positions. When he is not present or he did not become Caliph another one can be made a candidate or can be appointed.”!34

“In such a case the second obligation becomes mandatory. The formation of Caliphate at consensus of Muhajireen and Ansaar becomes final and legitimate.”!35

Third Wrong Result: Usurpation Of Ali’s Caliphate Is No More In Question!

It is said:

“Although he (Ali) rightfully considered himself more suitable and deserving, he did not consider others’ Caliphate infidelity or usurpation.”!36

Fourth Wrong Result: Caliphate Of Caliphs Is Not Illegitimate!

Such is said:

“In selecting the Caliph through consultation, companions of Prophet maintained rules of God and carried out Islamic regulations.”!37

“After passing away of Prophet immediately, companions of Prophet thought about Caliphate and formed a government of religion. Thus Caliphate of Caliphs came into being.”!38

Warning: Propagation Of These Conjectures In The Name Of Open-Mindedness

The attraction of the name of election of the people and its resemblance to Western democracy – the foregone conjectures have found a place in attention of open-minded persons of the society.

Such is said:

“In accordance with sense and contents of Quranic verses and traditions and according to words of Ali himself (which are in plenty) the owner of rulership and the executors are people themselves. Islamic government is a democratic or public government.”!39

“The appointment or dismissal of an Imam or head of government must take place with choice and consultation of people…!”

According to clear texts, repeated statements and practice of Prophet and other four personages of the cloak, government of Muslims is government of people themselves. It is formed by their consultation. So the Sunni brothers will have no objection.”!40

Relation Of Imamate And Caliphate From Shia Viewpoint

Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari writes in this respect:

“…an issue in the chapter of Imamate is government. In other words, what is the status of government after the Prophet?

Is it on shoulders of people; and is it for people themselves to appoint a government for themselves or is it on the Prophet? Whether he appointed a ruler when he is no more?

Since recently, they design the issue in a way that it strikes to mind the idea of Sunni sect to the effect that it appears normal and naturally common.

The wrong framing of the issue:

They frame the subject in a way as if we have a problem by name of government. We want to see in the name of government as to what is the government in the view of Islam?..41

If we pose Imamate in a plain way at the level of a government and say, it means government, we shall see the attraction exceeds what Sunni say and goes beyond what Shias say…42

We should not commit such a mistake to imagine a government at the very name of Imamate. As a result the issue, let it be however plain, this branch that has come into being should not lace it. This might occur to us as to who should take over the charge of government. He who wants to be a governor should he be superior to all others? Probably he who becomes a governor could be relatively superior and not absolutely. This is because we have treated this issue as of little importance. This is a mistake.

Today this mistake is often repeated.

As Imamate is mentioned, our mind goes to the meaning of government. Government is a branch – a very little side of Imamate.43

We say there is some other issue among Shias. If we fix that issue, the question of government too is settled. We believe in a position or office, which is immediately after prophethood or its subordination. In the presence or existence of that office, the issue of government comes into its fold. In other words issue of government is encompassed in existence of Prophet. Similarly in the presence of Imam – in the sense, which Shia says – the issue of government is itself in existence.44

The subject of Imamate itself entails prophethood. But it does not mean that its position is far below something close to prophethood – in its similarity. The great prophets in addition to their prophethood they had this office of Imamate too.45

Imamate is a phenomenon of prophethood exactly to the level of prophethood at its highest grades. It is such among Shias.46

Prophethood itself is an entity wherein exist thousands of things. The Prophet’s existence makes Muslims needless of a ruler because he is the ruler. Government was one of the affairs of prophethood…47

But it was not bestowed upon him by the people. This was a right given him by God, because he was a superior human being.

Since he was the interpreter of God’s commandments and a moral link with the unseen world he had rulership too over the people…48

When we accept such a fact there arises no question of a ruler as long as the Prophet exists. He has a dimension beyond a human being. Likewise, as long as exists the Imam there arises no question as to who is to rule…49

From Shia viewpoint, question of government is same as it was in lifetime of Prophet. He has an exceptional government.

As the question of government does not rise in lifetime of Prophet, so it is in lifetime of Imam. The meaning of Imam as it is in belief of Shia, rescinds the issue of government. The issue of government is a branch issue and a dependent one…50

Therefore we must not regard issue of Imamate simple. We should not treat it as a worldly position.

Among Shias, Imamate is a living issue. In presence of Imam, there is no room for other as in the case of lifetime of Prophet.

And the Prophet had appointed Ali for Imamate. He who is Imam necessarily governs too. The Prophet has mentioned ‘rulership’ in addition to ‘he is the Imam after me.’”51

He writes under the heading: ‘In presence of infallible there is no room for selection’ thus:

“The subject of Imamate with regard to leadership and government is: Now like the days of Prophet there exists an infallible. The Prophet had appointed his successor who was not to the level of other persons because his level was too high. And with regard to his capabilities and standards he was exceptional like the Prophet himself. Therefore there arises no question of consultation and selection.

In the days of the Prophet, no one said that the Prophet was a Messenger and a recipient of divine revelation. So the government must be framed by consultation. People should come and cast their opinion whether to select someone else or the Prophet himself for the post of ruler. But people thought that the Prophet is above ordinary persons and that he has links with the world of revelation. Now after the Prophet there is no place for these sayings. But one thing is undeniable. Having had an infallible person purged from mistakes and perfect in earthly and heavenly knowledge, should we go to another one instead?

Besides, Ali was an Imam. So the worldly post of leadership too will be his lot all by itself. The Prophet has explained this aspect too. The Prophet referred this position to Ali because Ali had the other position also.”52

- 1. Nazim-ul-Islam Kermani: Tarikh-e-Bedaari-e-Iraniaan (History of Iranian Awakening), Vol. 1, Pgs. 114-115.

- 2. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 106.

- 3. In order to learn about Sunni outlook especially regarding Imamate and Caliphate, refer to the books Peshwai az Nazar-e-Islam and Rahbari-e-Ummat by Ustad Ja’far Subhani.

- 4. Refer: Ali Labbaf, A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 2.

- 5. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 52.

- 6. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 51.

- 7. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Hukumat-e-Deeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pg. 2.

- 8. Ibid. Hukumat-eDeeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pg. 2.

- 9. Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 101.

- 10. Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 38.

- 11. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 129.

- 12. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 77.

- 13. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 128.

- 14. Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 38.

- 15. Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 290.

- 16. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 547.

- 17. Husayn Ali Montazeri: Mubaani-e-Fiqhi Hukumat-e-Islami (Translated by Mahmood Salawati) (Sources of Islamic jurisprudence in Islamic Government), Vol. 2, Section 4. Proof of occurrence of Caliphate by selection by people, Pg. 299.

- 18. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 77.

- 19. Ibid. Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 201.

- 20. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 92.

- 21. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 156.

- 22. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 159.

- 23. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 141.

- 24. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 123.

- 25. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Majmua Maqaalaat (Collected Essays), Pgs. 106-110.

- 26. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 82-83.

- 27. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 137.

- 28. Attention in this regard shows why unity-seekers place their real idea in the argument of Imamate and Caliphate (elected government).

- 29. Roots of this perverted outlook can be found in the conjecture of ‘Obtained Imamate’ in writings of people like Dr. Ali Shariati.

- 30. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 97.

- 31. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 124.

- 32. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 33. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 146.

- 34. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 125.

- 35. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 176.

- 36. Sayyid Abul Fazl Barqayi: Preface to the book Sharaha-e-Ittehaad (Roads to Unity), Pg.

- 37. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam),Vol. 1, Pg. 112.

- 38. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 545.

- 39. Engineer Mahdi Bazargan: Besat-O-Idiolozy (Proclamation and Ideology), Pg. 115.

- 40. Ibid. Besat-O-Idiolozy (Proclamation and Ideology), Pg. 148.

- 41. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 67.

- 42. Ibid. Pg. 69.

- 43. Ibid. Pgs. 70-71.

- 44. Ibid. Pg. 113.

- 45. Ibid. Pg. 186.

- 46. Ibid. Pg. 163.

- 47. Ibid. Pg. 162.

- 48. Ibid. Pg. 112.

- 49. Ibid. Pg. 163.

- 50. Ibid. Pg. 147.

- 51. Ibid. Pg. 81.

- 52. Ibid. Pg. 80.

Discourse 7: Denial Of Differences Between Ali And Caliphs

Introduction

It seems necessary to take into consideration events that took place in early days of Islam with their details and fundamentals of Shia belief and teachings of Shia school for analysis. Otherwise events will be interpreted according to desire by overlooking some occurrences or avoiding a part of them, deleting the beginning and end or ignoring principles of Shia belief, or by linking separate events to each other and a reason will be found for it.

This is the method and way of deviation not only in historical events but also in some researches of belief.

Such a trend in the event means to set aside fundamentals of belief and to take up similarities of history. By this way one’s view or opinion in Islamic history, traditions and on Islamic texts can be inserted or applied. Even opinion of other researchers can be shown in a wrong light.

They separate an event from the whole history. This is one of the wrong thoughts being propagated for creating Islamic unity. They make Shia belief remote from event. This they do to prove that there did not exist any difference between Ali and Caliphs.

No tyranny took place anywhere, neither a right was snatched away from Ali.

It seems that the great obstacles in way of inserting this matter are events in history which started from Saqifah Bani Saada.

In any case every reader has a little study and some information about history of early Islam. So he knows the events immediately after passing away of Prophet. No matter this information could be on basis of Sunni sources. He cannot believe so simply that there was no difference between Ali and Caliphs. It could be possible that narration might have taken a different trend. The word difference might have been used in a sense of friendly not inimical difference, or the enmity of one side might be denied which followed the Saqifah and resulted in martyrdom of Mohsin and then martyrdom of Zahra herself. In the end relations might be shown as friendly.

Such they have written:

“Difference in a society – like that of Islamic – after passing away of Prophet could be of two dimensions. One: a brotherly difference; the other: an inimical one…

My conclusion is whatever happened in the early days of Islam among Muslims particularly after passing away of Prophet between Ali and companions of Prophet was certainly a friendly difference.”!1

Those who infuse such doubts have forgotten that one of parties to these differences, named friendly, was an infallible Imam. God vested him with mandate to repudiate differences in the Islamic Ummah.

One of the reasons of Shia for continuity of Imamate after prophethood is existence of differences among Muslims and necessity of their removal by an infallible source. God appointed the Prophet to remove differences between Muslims. In the same way, God appointed infallible Imam as only source to repudiate differences. God bestowed on him a faculty that safeguards him from mistakes or ignorance. He is the only source after the Prophet. Differences are nullified by referring to him. His word and practice are final authorities and distinguisher of right from wrong and virtue from vice. To deny his ruling is not acceptable and an absolute wrong.

Therefore to put in a word in the trend or attitude the Imam adopts is an open treachery from command of God. Treachery against God’s orders and standing face to face in open disobedience to authority of God, that is the infallible Imam, is in itself a source of difference. There is no justification, whatsoever, even though the difference be a friendly one.

Even if we ignore this mistake of belief there still remains an important point to be heeded. Supposing the difference was a friendly one, the first question that arises is what was the reason for this difference?

History gives us answer to this question: The difference starts from Saqifah where the God-given right of Ali, which the Prophet had already made known to masses in Ghadeer, was usurped. Then atrocities were openly unleashed on him (Ali) and his wife Zahra. Ali himself had said: “…in these circumstances I am not alone on whom tyranny is being done.”2

Here one should ask whether tyranny and atrocity could have a brotherly or friendly nature and characteristic? Can we say such a difference was a family issue or a brotherly one? Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet has had been complaining too often. Were her complaints brotherly? Did she complain of friendly atrocities? Can a tyranny be friendly? If it was friendly, why Zahra kept complaining to God about the tyranny?3

Another point is:

If Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) after these oppressions, tyrannies and usurpation of Caliphate from the aspect of protecting Islam and responsibilities the Holy Prophet (S) had given him from Allah, does this reflect that Ali was happy or indifferent in his heart about tyrannies and atrocities done to him and his wife, Zahra? Does this mean that Ali treated the tyrannies committed to him as brotherly and friendly? Ali was under a mandate from the Prophet to tolerate tyranny for the sake of preserving Islam4 although his Caliphate was taken away from him. He refrained from taking back his right by an armed uprising because his motive and aim was greater and nobler. He had to remain honest to Prophet’s recommendations to him.

Can Ali be sympathetic and have normal behavior and ordinary conduct against a tyrant, usurper and murderer? He himself has referred to this.5

If he remained silent to avoid war and bloodshed to protect Quran from being destroyed totally and likewise the family of the Prophet; does this mean that it was a brotherly difference?

On many occasions Ali interfered in the dealings of Caliphs. This shows his sympathy towards Islamic Ummah and its interests. It was his intention to protect religion from being destroyed. Such is the conduct of men of God against biggest enemies of faith, or God or themselves. Men of God have always behaved as such. They show endurance and tolerance in most pressing conditions. They have always invited to good and a straight way. However, this cannot mean that they were looking eye to eye with the tyrants. It does not reflect that they did not have differences or that they were friendly with them.

This particularity also displays their (the enemies’) conduct towards the Imam. It has been said:

“Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies with each other though they had differences with each other – very serious differences. But they were not one another’s enemy.”!6

The calamity that happened after Saqifah; what was it, if not sign of enmity?

Certainly, they will say:

“Differences between companions of Prophet were internal but friendly.”!7

It is pitiable that designers of this outlook have forgotten important principles of belief and authenticity of word and deed of Infallible. Instead of going after origin of this difference, which is to turn away from God’s authority, they should have paid attention to the fact that it is all to give shape to their design. It is an effort to justify differences.

Shia logic is that an infallible Imam is a pivot of truth. Whoever is not in its circle or in its rotation has strayed and lost in darkness of vice and wrong.

The Quran says:

“So what is after the truth but going astray?”8

Well, has not the Prophet said this about Ali?

“Ali is with truth and the truth with Ali.”9

Still can we consider the difference a justified one? Can we classify it?

The base on which the difference rests is wrong. Disobedience and going treacherous in orders and instructions give rise to differences. Whether differences are friendly or do not make any difference.

To be at a difference with an infallible Imam is itself going astray. It is by root wrong and a sin though it may be named friendly.

The base of differences is tyranny, atrocity and usurping God-bestowed right of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. To deny their authority to lift the differences is to deny God’s decree. These differences are on the ruins of religion. Calling them friendly cannot change the reality.

Whatever the trend and attitude, contact and conduct of a party to differences was towards safeguarding God’s religion, Quran and family of the Prophet. However vast the differences it cannot be a proof for existence of friendship or facing of the Imam in friendly terms against those who had usurped his right of Caliphate. It cannot be a proof for non-existence of implacabilities and rancor on the other side of dispute.

In fact, if they had not turned their backs upon the pivot of truth no difference would have come into being.

Because Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) had divine mandate for his responsibility and a mission from God, he adopted a special attitude in his relations with Caliphs. He avoided armed uprising. On no occasion did he give up his right to demand what was taken away from him. He kept his demand alive.10

Caliphs also had to cover their scandal and ignorance of Islam and administration; so occasionally they were in consultation with Ali.11 In itself, it is a proof of their ignorance and not knowing the job. They had occupied the Prophet’s position they did not deserve.

There was no sign to show either side was on good terms with the other. Although there was no open dispute or a row between them, yet the terms took most awkward trend.

In the early days of usurpation of Caliphate there occurred a harsh entanglement and ended by attack on Zahra’s house.

In spite of all this we still see them claiming:

“As soon as Ali paid allegiance to Caliph he became intimate with him.”!12

“Ali paid allegiance to Caliphs. Since he had a high spirit, he did not take anybody’s rancor to heart. But he behaved sincerely with them.”!13

“Although Ali was aware that he was more suitable and deserving to be Caliph, yet he behaved gently with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. He extended help to them without any hesitation.”!14

“There is no crime more serious than that even though there was peace between the Imam and Caliphs people fell into differences among themselves.”!15

Such comments and statements, injecting ideas that the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms entail wrong consequences. For instance:

The rule of Abu Bakr and Umar has come out of the circle of usurpation. The logic of people of Saqifah has taken legitimacy.

More pitiable is that they frame various arguments to prove that Ali had confirmed legitimacy of their government while it was his right. How can this be possible?

Furthermore, they say:

“Acceptance and acknowledgement of Ali shows from his own (Ali’s) outlook that their government was a legal and legitimate one.”!16

Regretfully, such types of statements and comments go a long way to justify Caliphs’ government. The deviations, perversions, crimes and innovations in religion are thus either forgotten or hidden in an umbrella of such false claims. Their atrocities and enmity with infallible Ahlul Bayt of Prophet are ignored. It is claimed:

“Seeking distance from enemies of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet (i.e. Baraat) is applied on only three Caliphs.”!17

“Rude historical portrayal of the three Caliphs must be looked at anew.”!18

Ali did not campaign. It is true. But it does not mean he was a friend of them. He had a greater aim. He avoided people going back to their recent position; that is idol worship, to the days prior to Islam.19 He wanted to protect the land of revelation from foreign enemies. He had to save the life of the Prophet’s family from hypocrites.

This attitude is attributed to silence and silence construed as acceptance and co-operation with Caliphs.20 Likewise, they try to establish friendship between Imam and Caliphs. The long rankling enmity of Caliphs with Ahlul Bayt (‘a) is over-ridden. Consequently, it will entail legitimacy to Caliphs’ government.

Such a movement goes beyond necessary limits for protecting political unity and laying a lid over dispute and differences.

Criticism And Analysis

“Ali did not give up his right because he kept complaining and demanding his right from those who had usurped it. He frankly and openly made his right known to all. He did not see this as a hindrance or setback to Islamic unity. There are several speeches in Nahjul Balagha to establish this fact.21 In spite of all this, he did not withdraw himself from the rows of Muslims before the strangers. Ali kept the same attitude in practice too. Besides, personally he did not accept any post in government of any Caliph. He did not accept any. He neither accepted any military post nor a civil one neither in any district nor province or responsibility of pilgrims. When he did not accept any post, it does not denote his acceptance of their government or his overlooking of their tyranny in depriving him of his right.22 He himself did not accept any office but he did not prevent his family members, friends or companions to accept any post. To accept a job in administration could be co-operation with them. But it was by no means sanction to their right to rule.”23

Therefore it is better to expound here the historical bitter and painful truth.24 We should not distort facts or show partiality. Else the coming generation will take for granted these things as a matter of belief not on the basis of happenings.

“We should not consider Caliphs restricted from Caliphate particularly when the Imam had been on good terms with them. He was co-operative and even intimate to them. Further the Imam was their guide openly and secretly.”!25

Such a reflection of events; does it not make stronger pillars of rulership which had come into being through intrigue and treachery at Saqifah? And this very

Saqifah is an open disobedience to Quranic text and God’s ruling. The political game of Saqifah was a deviation among Muslims and formation of a government in contradiction to the government of God. A false justification of peace and friendship between the Imam and Caliphs cannot give legitimacy to their tyrannical treachery.

The false peace and friendship on the part of the Imam who was a true one and God’s Caliph over the earth in favor of Abu Bakr’s false Caliphate will give it legitimacy.

What History Says?

“If this statement be true that in the lifetime of Prophet of God two different political movements existed among Muhajireen. There were those who were trying to obtain Caliphate. It should be confessed that from those days the Imam and Shaykhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) should have not been on good terms. In the information about conduct, nothing exists to prove this. Likewise, there does not exist anything to show friendship between them. The enmity of Ayesha with Ali existed from the very days of the Prophet. She herself has admitted this fact. This shows the differences between the progeny of Abu Bakr and the progeny of Ali. When Fatima died, all the Prophet’s widows took part in mourning ceremonies. But Ayesha did not participate under excuse of sickness. Anyway, something was narrated to Ali. It was that Ayesha had expressed her happiness. Immediately after Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, she started proving the legitimacy of Caliphate and created troubles for Ali and his relatives.

Zahra’s house was attacked. She was angry with the two (Abu Bakr and Umar). Zahra in her will banned them from attending her burial. This deepened the differences. Since then Imam isolated himself in his house and got busy with affairs of his private life. The government had expected him in view of his paying allegiance,26 to not claim his right. They even expected him to take up his sword in way of strengthening their rulership and to fight with their adversaries. But Imam rejected this request from them. So it was quite normal that they belittle him against such an attitude of his.27 This policy pushed the Imam into further isolation.”28

“Relations of the Imam with Abu Bakr were too cold as though there were no good memories at all. But in his relations with Umar, there are many memories most of them are Imam’s assistance to him in judicial matters. Besides, his help in answering the questions is another factor. Umar used to apparently behave gently with the Imam. 29He tried not to be obviously harsh towards him. Likewise, Imam too maintained same reciprocation. But Uthman was not like this. He did not tolerate Imam’s opinions…”30

“To oppose the government was very difficult for the Imam. In the early days the Imam tried to avoid facing the government by isolating himself. Saad bin Ubadah was rather a good experience.31 He did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. All of a sudden news reached that Jinns had murdered him.”32

“Of course whenever an opportunity arose he did claim his right. In the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, he did not pay allegiance for a few months. It was still initial stage of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate that Ali used to take his wife and sons and go from door to door of the Ansaar to remind them about Prophet’s words and demand the right snatched from him by intrigue.

His insistence was to the extent that he was accused of greed for Caliphate.”33

“Regarding evaluation of Imam about the three Caliphs this much can be said: In each of the periods, Imam was not free to express his evaluation about the two Caliphs. But during the period of Uthman, whenever an occasion or an opportunity arose he expressed his conclusions and opinions.

The reason was that his soldiers in Kufa were such that except for a few all had accepted two Caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar). So the Imam could not speak his mind in their presence or in their gathering. Once he availed an opportunity, he started exposing his agonies caused by them. Then all of a sudden he turned the trend of his speech and did not continue the subject.”34

“Inspite of his alertness and care he did not accept the condition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the days of Shura committee. The condition was that the Imam should follow Abu Bakr and Umar’s practice in his Caliphate. Imam refused and said he will act according to his own Ijtihaad.

This refusal clearly shows Imam’s attitude to the two Caliphs. This shows that their conduct in most cases was against Prophet’s conduct and God’s pleasure.

Imam’s speeches and proceeds during his government reflect his displeasure about dealings of the past two Caliphs.”35

The Result

“Each side of the Imam’s isolated life in that society is an indicator that he himself and Caliphs were aware of this fact that they cannot behave or deal with each other as to show his approval to them and to their Caliphate.”36

Likewise:

“There is not a least doubt that the Imam had no part in the run of affairs during three Caliphates. He only gave his opinion where judicial cases were concerned. And still more limited he gave opinion only in political concern. Therefore he had no serious or sincere presence in political scene of past three Caliphs. In short, Ali had no membership or chair in the framework of government of three Caliphs. So it can be said that he had leadership of the opposition party from a distance.”37

Reminder

The point in explanation of Ali’s activities of belief and knowledge should be paid attention to is:

The real identity of Imam’s activities lies in his endeavors towards wiping out dust of deviation and wreckage from original face of Islamic teachings and propaganda of Islamic fundamentals. There is no doubt how he tried to renew the real entity of faith. This becomes clearer when anti-Islamic movements of Caliphs are sketched in detail.

If we magnify the limited activities of Imam, it will result rather in giving a misleading picture to the people. Whatever he did must be kept against whatever Caliphs did. Then only can be understood Imam’s services to Islam. Caliphs damaged Islam and its teachings. Imam Ali (‘a) mended the damage. The scope is wider. It embraces military, economical, cultural, social and political spheres. The work of Ali cannot be conceived without a comparison with the work of previous three Caliphs. We add here what is said:

“Since the revolution which Islam brought was a revolution of faith and culture, it did not depend on aimed campaign. After demise of Prophet, Imam (Ali) occupied himself in this said activity, which was of utmost importance and priority. This he did to provide a thorough and consummate answer to objections and attacks (in sphere of belief) of the scholars of newly conquered countries. Further, to be able to cater to the queries of lawyers and jurisprudents. Far beyond this, to provide a stock of teachings that could be embraced without hesitation in countries that had accepted Islam as their faith. So in the fronts of law, belief, principles, Islamic cultural issues, jurisprudence and other issues he was well equipped with the needed sources.”38

“After Prophet’s passing away Imam Ali (‘a) throughout the span of three Caliphs because of his God-bestowed sagacity, intelligence and ministry he had been a pivot of Islamic revolution. He engaged himself in giving guidance to people and Caliphs at the same time.39

He [Imam Ali (‘a)] fulfilled the task of highest degree of honest consultant of Caliphs in all grounds, political and military. He had physical presence in the arena. As far as he could he held the people and Caliphs from going astray, becoming disobedient to divine rulings, deviating from standards established by Prophet, going corrupted, treacherous and sinful by advising and enjoining good and restraining from evil.”40

A Note

We have specified all aspects and dimensions of this discussion regarding extremist unity-seekers in second volume of this book. We suffice with this much in this volume. We invite your attention to the analysis of Ustad Ja’far Murtadha Amili in his bookAnalysis of the political life of Imam Hasan Mujtaba (2nd Edition, Pgs. 88-125):

He commences his analysis under the heading: ‘A Surprising Role’ and writes:

“Events took place which are known and recorded in history. Ali was sidelined from Islamic Caliphate and isolated in his house.

Politics of the system that ruled and those who came to power treated Imamate with two aims.

1 – They started injecting spirit of disappointment and hopelessness into adversaries; even to Ali himself. They regarded Ali as most powerful and stronger of all besides seeing him as a strong rival and competitor.

They started erasing out all signs of aspirations and intentions to reach to Caliphate….”

Ustad Ja’far Murtadha in continuation of his analysis derives the following results through documents and proofs, which he produces in this respect:

“Government authorities were trying that Ali might forget the issue of Caliphate and Imamate and lose heart in reaching it.”

Then the Ustad writes in his analysis about the second aim of Caliphs:

2 – They prepared ground to confirm and establish Caliphate in favor of those whom they held in their view and choice. They tried to create such conditions and circumstances, which could keep out Ali and any member of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of the Prophet from getting Caliphate.

The Ustad dwells on political calculations of Caliphs towards attaining these aims. He produces historical documents. He counts ten attitudes in this respect and deals each of them individually.

Deviation In Criticism Of Ali About Caliphs

Introduction

Some supporters of Islamic unity have produced a feeble analysis. They claim thereupon that no political difference existed between Ali and Caliphs. However, in this respect they face a difficulty. This difficulty is the strong and harsh criticism of Caliphs from Ali.41 The criticism is so strong that it rescinds all possibilities of naming it peace or good terms or friendship.

Therefore unity-seekers attribute this attitude and criticism of Ali to his higher morals and decorum in comparison to ability of Caliphs in administration of government. By this analysis and their own, they have gone so far as to forget the holy text in this respect. All these endeavors at whatever cost, are to give credit to the plot of Saqifah. They think that the only shortcoming of Saqifah was absence of Ali.42 To propagate this conjecture they do not refrain from laying hands on whatever comes handy to them. Here is one:

“Is it right to say that there existed interest and opinion in the mind of Ali which concerned him? But the fact is that he saw himself stronger to Caliphate because he held himself and members of his family stronger than others in running affairs of government.”!43

In fact, such an outlook acknowledges independence of one from the other between Imamate and rulership. The outlook confirms each a separate entity from the other.

Then on the basis of this separation, he dwells on the error of Saqifah to select an Islamic ruler with the required qualities. In the end he sees Ali as the deserving person for the post. Then from here Ali is ignored and forgotten.

Therefore criticism of Ali becomes too light. It takes up a level of complaint to the effect that one says: How this one was selected when there was a more deserving one?

So in this regard it is said:

“If words or opinions were exchanged in this regard it was baseless and outside the fundamentals of these two positions. In my opinion, it is better not to call them difference. It was only a complaint as to why the Caliph was selected without taking his opinion or consulting him.”!44

Criticism And Scrutiny

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this regard:

“Sunni scholars and researchers have written explanations of Nahjul Balagha. They have scrutinized the statements of Imam Ali (‘a) about Caliphate one after another. They have derived this conclusion from the whole data: The aim of Imam from his statements is to show his eligibility, ability, quality and qualification for Caliphate without any gap from the Prophet. With regard to relationship: the Imam enjoyed very close ties with Prophet. With regard to learning and knowledge, the Imam was superior to all. With regard to principles of justice, information and principles of policies and politics: the Imam had no peer. Likewise, in matters of running a country also he was above all companions of Prophet. For this reason, he was the befitting candidate for Caliphate. Because elders of the Ummah had decided to choose good instead of best. So they selected other than him; an inferior. Therefore Imam pointed out the tyranny that took place in this respect. He had a right to say that he was more suitable and befitting for the job.

The right which the Imam refers to goes thus: Since the day the Prophet passed away my right was taken away from me. And I was deprived of my own right. This is not a religious right that should have been given to him by head of religion. But it is meant to be a natural right, which binds each one to not give priority to an inferior when there is a superior. In other words, in the presence of a better choice it must not go to an inferior. The affairs or a task should rest on shoulders of one who is more able and befitting one. Whenever if the opposite happens, that is inspite of presence of one with more qualifications, abilities and knowledge he is ignored and another one with less abilities and more ignorance is chosen, it will be a natural right of his to complain about the tyranny done to him…”45

This matter is regarded as a research but it is not more than a thought. We cannot translate all words of the Imam into his personal ability. And such a personal decorum of Imam cannot be a pivot of harsh attacks on Caliphs. Whenever the problem of leadership in Islam should be solved by means of referendum, consultation or negotiation, one who surpasses in all qualities the others and yet is ignored and not elected he cannot regard himself as a rightful one or the post is his right. To withdraw to him is a tyranny. He cannot attack bitterly those who have taken his place. But such is not the case. We do not see such a tone in Imam’s speeches. He considers himself the true rightful one to belong to the post. He regards it a tyranny in him if he were to withdraw from the arena.

He considers Quraish tyrants to him and trespassers and transgressors on his rights, can such harsh words be justified because of his self-decorum? It is never correct to represent the criticism of Caliphate of Caliphs as his personal demeanor. These words of the Imam go a great deal to prove that Caliphate was his established right. The Imam regarded deviation in behavior towards him as deviation in truth. Such a firmness in his belief towards Caliphate cannot be but by the text of Quran or a divine decree. Else, there is no other reason, which could make one sure and certain to such an extent.

Such interpretations cannot be translated into a priority. Those who interpret statements of Imam in this way are judging in advance. Their belief rests in elected Caliphate, which is a setback to them to evaluate words of Imam.”46

Taking into consideration such harsh criticism of Imam to Caliphs, which was right of Imam and rightful to him – a right vested to him directly from God, can we accept that:

“The Imam had not abused Caliphs in a fashion common among masses, but on the contrary, he had on many occasions even praised them.”47

Such vague and hallow claims cannot be encouraging factors to eradicate the principle of Baraat and put into practice praising Caliphs?

“It will certainly be so because it crawls and creeps on a belief that by doing so we are following Ali’s practice.”!48

Is it reasonable that the conduct of Imam which must be a model, will praise, that too on several occasions, those who enacted Saqifah to deprive him of God-bestowed right of Caliphate? Besides, they attacked Zahra’s house. Beyond this they set fire to its door. As a result, his wife miscarried and she herself later died – a death of martyrdom.

- 1. Muhammad Jawad Hujjat Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 2. Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 74.

- 3. Refer: Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 4. That is protection of Quran and Ahlul Bayt (‘a) and absence of apostasy and return of the Ummah to the conditions of idol-worship and ignorance.

- 5. “Be enemy to a tyrant and helper to a victim” Ali’s will to his sons, Hasan and Husayn, Nahjul Balagha, Muhammad Abduh, Letter No. 47.

- 6. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 7. Ibid. Interview published in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 79, Pg. 61.

- 8. Surah Yunus 10:32.

- 9. To know the sources of this tradition refer to Ahqaaqul Haqq, Vol. 5, Pg. 28, 43, 623, 638 and Vol. 16, Pgs. 384-397.

- 10. Ali did not refrain throughout the periods of Caliphs from stating that the caliphate was this right. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Seeri Dar Seerah Aimmah-e-Athaar (A Glance at the Life of Purified Imams), Pg. 22.

- 11. In cases of consultations if attention were paid it is seen on many occasions Caliphs and even companions have given their opinion. The Imam too has given his opinion. On the occasions when Caliphs were interrogated by non-Muslims in religious and scientific matters, Caliphs did not refer to the Imam. Even in some cases, it has been seen that Caliphs did not accept Imam’s view or opinion. Sometime the Caliph used to ignore the presence of Imam. The Caliph, whether right or wrong, had issued his judgment without referring to Imam.
In order to be acquainted with the limited number of cases wherein the caliph consulted the Imam, refer to the list in the Second Volume of this book.

The important point, which must not be ignored, is:

Claim A: The Second Caliph gave priority to opinion of Ali over opinions of all companions. He had gone so far as to give orders to the effect that no one had a right to give his judgment or opinion as long as Ali was in the mosque. Sometimes in the consulting committee, Umar treated Ali’s opinion as final. On many occasions, he had acknowledged that Ali was superior to all in knowledge. (Abdul Kareem Biazar Shirazi, Keyhan Farhangi, No 184, Bahman 8, Pg. 16)

Claim B: Umar has too often and too repeatedly said: “This judgment of Ali is better than all our judgments.”
When he reached to the Caliphate, he took refuge in God from the situation when he is entangled in a difficult issue and Ali too is not present. Before him Abu Bakr and after him Uthman also sought his help in their difficulties. (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious, Vol. 2, Pg. 7).

The root goes back to the acknowledgement of Caliphs. They have tried to cover their usurping the government which was a God-bestowed right of Ali.

Umar during his Caliphate told Ibn Abbas: “Ali was more suitable and befitting to the post of ruler than me and Abu Bakr. Ibn Abbas said then why he was sidelined? Umar immediately replied: “We do not take decisions without consulting Ali.”
(Ali Muhammad Mir Khalili: Imam Ali and the Rulers, Pg. 167)

Caliphs’ attitude towards attaining consultation of companions can be regarded as their diplomacy to make them feel they also have a share in affairs of government. Besides, it minimized their objections to a certain extent.

This method seemed necessary throughout the long period. The causes of Uthman’s assassination can be found in this very ground because he had abolished to take advice, which was in contrast to his two predecessors. One of the complaints of those who had surrounded his house was that he did not take their advice. Those who surrounded his house complained addressing Uthman. There are points worth noting:

“During your caliphate you have thrashed the companions of Prophet for guiding the people and inviting you back to the right path and be just in your doings. So now it is your turn to pay the cost of your wrong doings.”
(Allamah Al-Askari: Role of Ayesha in Islamic History, Vol. 1, Pg. 251)

Caliphs were always anxious to give legitimacy to their rule. They tried to gain the attention of Ali in whatever way it was possible. They tried to show to the people that Ali was pleased with them. Therefore they were very much serious in their endeavors.

- 12. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22.

- 13. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition), Pg. 11.

- 14. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 207.

- 15. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), (Preface to the 3rd Edition) Pg. 217.

- 16. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176.

- 17. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381.

- 18. Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381.

- 19. Silence for the sake of unity does not mean approval to usurpation of his divine right of Caliphate and an effort of protecting this usurped rulership!

- 20. Many such statements are present in the Section One of the book, Strategy of Unity (Section of the biographies of Imams)!

- 21. This rests on the same wrong analysis that for the sake of national unity he maintained friendly relations with Saqifah’s caliphate. Ali overlooked his and his wife’s right for the sake of unity of Muslims. He endured all sorts of tyranny. He gave priority to Muslim unity over himself and his wife and his sons. (Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi: Article: ‘Unity in Nahjul Balagha’ in The Book of Unity, Pg. 131).
The behavior of Ali was regarded a distinction to national unity. For this reason whatever action he took with regards to his rights he was careful that unity which was a principle to him should not be harmed. Whenever he thought that his principle was getting hurt he used to ignore his own right. (Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Nos.9-10 spring, Summer 80, Pg. 11)

- 22. In this duration Ali was outside the political as well as military arena. During Abu Bakr’s Caliphate he did not accept any responsibility. He did the same in the time of Umar. He did not accept the post of the commander at the time of Iran invasion. At the time of journey of Umar to Palestine, Umar took all companions of Prophet along with him. Ali took the responsibility of administration of Medina. This was the only exceptional case. It is remarkable here that Umar was strongly against Bani Hashim going out of Medina. He feared their influence in districts outside Medina or their military action which he had anticipated.
(Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 54.

- 23. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pg. 20-21.

- 24. When the curtain is lifted from Saqifah the events come to light. The assault on Fatima’s house, usurping the caliphate and confiscation of Fadak in all these bad and criminal intentions of Caliphs are obvious. It bars the way for dividing God-bestowed positions and makes clear that Members of Prophet’s House took no step of friendship towards them.

- 25. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), translation Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Pg. 222.

- 26. By the martyrdom of Zahra, Ali lost a supporter. Thus Ali became obliged to yield to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. This he had to do to protect Islam and to avoid the hypocrites and pagans from availing an excuse. For instance, a few persons had claimed prophethood outside Medina. For example, Musailaima who claimed prophethood in the days of Prophet himself. When the Prophet died his family members and his tribe surrounded him in a display of physical support to him. He too had prepared rhetoric verses. His claim was: one prophet for his tribe and one for Quraish. He had prepared forty thousand warriors to attack Medina and to reduce it to dust. Had he reached Medina the first ones he would have killed was Ali and his sons, Hasan and Husayn.
Then he would have destroyed the grave of Prophet and erased all remaining signs from the face of the earth. Next to him there was a woman from the tribe of Bani Tameem named Sajjah. She had succeeded in gathering a gang around her. She too claimed that she was a prophetess. A number of people had returned to their initial status of idol worship. The following claimed to be kings: Noman Bin Munzir Saavi Tameem. He had his coronation in Bahrain. Another one was Laqeet Bin Malik from Bani Najiah tribe. In Omman he was called ‘Zultaaj’ (crowned).

In such circumstances Uthman approached Ali and said: “O, Cousin! You are witnessing this situation. If you do not yield, Islam is facing danger.” So, Ali yielded for the sake of safeguarding Islam. Ali himself says: “I had given up. But I saw people had turned their backs at Islam. And the faith which the Prophet had brought was fast vanishing from the people as they were inviting among themselves to this end. Hence I feared if I do not help and support Muslims and Islam a great defeat will happen to Islam. In that case the havoc will too greater for me than to lose the government of a few days over you.”

It was after Ali’s Bayyat that Abu Bakr was able to send troops outside Medina. However for the sake of centralizing Islam Bayyat of Ali was quite necessary. So it is an established fact that had not Ali given Bayyat Islam would have never survived. So we are rather under an obligation to Ali because of his Bayyat Islam existed and we are Muslims accordingly.

(Allamah Al-Askari: Role of Imams in revival of faith, Vol. 14, Pg. 35-36) For more details of the above case refer to Section One of 4th Volume of this book.

- 27. Umar respected Ibn Abbas more and gave priority to belittle Ali. This was a policy so that Ibn Abbas narrate traditions. Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 73.

- 28. Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 53.

- 29. In matters of utmost importance when Umar was not able to take a decision he used to consult Ali.

- 30. Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 57.

- 31. Refer: Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 143-147.

- 32. Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 57.

- 33. Ibid. Pg. 58.

- 34. Ibid. Pg. 59.

- 35. Ibid. Pg. 59.

- 36. Ibid. Pg. 60.

- 37. Ibid. Pg. 61.

- 38. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 15.

- 39. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 40. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 26, Khordad 1379.

- 41. For more information about these matters refer to book Sahaba Az Deedgaah-e-Nahjul Balagha (Companions in the view of Nahjul Balagha) By Dawood Ilhaami.

- 42. After the death of the Prophet (S) Saqifah was arranged without consulting Ali and Abu Bakr was made the caliph. (Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.

- 43. Ibid. Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 22.

- 44. Muhammad Salih Haeri Mazandarani: Article quoted in Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (Unity of Islamic Sects), Translation: Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Pg. 220.

- 45. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pgs. 264-265.

- 46. Ibid. Pgs. 265-268.

- 47. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379.

- 48. Ibid. Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379.

Discourse 8: To Acknowledge The Legitimacy Of Caliphs’ Government

Introduction

Ultimately, an outlook comes into being which is much pitiable. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is freed from the circle of usurpation of Ali that has surrounded it for so long. Further, we give to it a total legitimacy. Therefore, we draw in red the mark of cancellation over differences sprung from argument of Imamate and Caliphate and dispatched wholesomely to be forgotten! Why all this? Because we do not care nor do we see ourselves bound to maintain standard of originality and sincerity of the idea for sake of Islamic unity.

They say:

“The issue of being a Caliph has two stages and priorities:

First priority: Adherence to holy text that embraces Caliphate and Imamate of Ali and his family…

Second Priority: In exceptional cases or conditions such as absence of social ground to get first priority or insurgency of masses or majority of the people due to any reason. This gains legitimacy and comes into effect.”!1

In other words, this wrong thinking acknowledges that:

They discarded and sidelined Caliphate, which was based on foundation of holy texts and appointment from the side of God. Leaving this authentic Caliphate, they go after a fake one and immediately a Caliph is chosen by people and consultants of Emigrants and Helpers.

(It is surprising the men in charge of Nahjul Balagha have given room to perverted outlook of Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani in their Issues No 4 & 5 of Nahjul Balagha Magazine. We read in the beginning of essay on Pg. 7:

“We shall dwell on the outlook of Nahjul Balagha about rulership and leadership. We shall avoid indulging in verbal arguments and only depend on analysis, personal conclusions and real picture.”

Therefore appointment of Caliph by Ummah takes legitimacy to itself and becomes Islamic and gains religious dimension. As such, the elected Caliphate becomes legitimate.

It is said:

“Certainly, this very priority became effective after passing away of Prophet…”!2

This perverted outlook tries to create Islamic unity under its attractive heading: The Second Priority and it takes to defend Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. They say:

“In this long argument, acceptance of two priorities in the issue of Caliphate brings forth two outlooks. The first outlook suffices on first priority and repudiates the second. This enfolds and enwraps repudiation of legitimacy of Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. We must admit here that Shia mentality too is the same.

But the second outlook obliges to acknowledge legitimacy of Caliphate of Caliphs. I insist that we in our time itself must scrutinize the matter from this outlook.”!3

Designers of this perverted outlook are followers of the route of Islamic unity. They invite to follow this outlook. It means acceptance of getting effective Caliphate of consultation and its legitimacy immediately after passing away of Prophet. They invite to this thought and say:

“Those who are supporters of Islamic unity, closeness of sects and inviters of nearness should know that in these days it is a necessity. In such a circumstance as this we should follow the width and length of this very same outlook…

If this group wants to reach by means of persistence over the first outlook to unity, it appears impossible…”!4

Scrutiny And Criticism

Such an attitude tries to give to the plot of hypocrite emigrants5 in Saqifah Bani

Saada a reactionary feature committed in relation to second priority about Islamic Caliphate. By so doing they could provide and furnish to Abu Bakr a religious ground to the rulership he captured.

It was on the basis of this theory all these things took place after disobedience of society from Caliphate of Ali, in addition to absence of social grounds for establishment of Alawi government. In other words, it took place after effectiveness and getting legitimacy of the second.

To justify this perverted idea we must first acknowledge the gathering of Ansaar in Saqifah as a most distinguished factor6 that wipes out and eliminates conditions necessary to establishment of Alawi government.

They say thus:

“The initiators in this matter are Ansaar. They (Helpers) without pre-knowledge or any consultation gathered in Saqifah Saad Bani Saada. In that gathering no one mentioned the name of Ali or Bani Hashim.”!7

“In the meeting name of Ali or Bani Hashim was not mentioned. The matter of Quranic verse or text that confirms Caliphate of Ali was overlooked and ignored which was first priority and even ground for second priority was prepared.”!8

Then to pretend that Emigrants present in Saqifah did not have any plan to lay hand upon Caliphate. They witnessed the ground that was made to usurp the right of Ali – that is Caliphate. They witnessed that Helpers and Emigrants extended validity and legality to election of Caliph. Here the second priority got accomplished. They took step for a legitimate endeavor to push Abu Bakr to the seat of Caliphate.

They say thus:

“Paying allegiance to Abu Bakr was not a pre-prepared plot as they say or claim.”!9

Yes, in this oblique thinking the Caliph and his supporters were introduced as believers and committed to religious rulings and regulations and to Islamic teachings. They were obedient to first priority – that is they were believers in Holy Text and divine decree about appointment of Caliph prior to the meeting.

They got the news of meeting in Saqifah Bani Saada. There the gathering became opposed to Caliphate of Ali. Besides, there was no pre-prepared ground necessary to get hold of Caliphate of category of the first priority.

He participated because of his corruption to religion and his obligation to faith. It was a gathering of mischief and corruption. He acted upon God’s rulings and Islamic teachings and on the second priority. As such, Abu Bakr was chosen to Caliphate.

They say:

“Abu Bakr with his past had a position among companions of Prophet that people went to him when they turned away from Ali.”!10

Therefore the designer of this wrong thinking believes:

“Ali was deprived of grounds available to Abu Bakr.”!11

On this perverted outlook, it must be said:

Proceedings of Abu Bakr and his supporters were not a tyranny to Ali. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate too was not illegitimate nor was it usurpation. It took place after second priority become effective!

Thus it is said:

“Inspite of the conditions Ali has accepted its validity.”12

“Certainly this priority was in effect after passing away of Prophet. Ali finally agreed and paid allegiance to Caliphs. He sincerely co-operated with them.”!13

“Ali paid allegiance to Abu Bakr by his will. There was no compulsion upon him. He co-operated with him in all events. Later he continued the same with Umar. He had also praised the two.”!14

Unanswered Questions

Designers of this theory (believers of second priority in Caliphate) invite all unity-seekers to:

“Follow the same broad outlook; and for its evidences search in Quran or tradition, or within lines of history.”!15

Therefore at the end of this analysis all scholars and researchers are invited to find out scientific and committed answers to the queries as hereunder. The answers are applied to outcome of above theory.

In fact, if the second priority in Caliphate be a religious factor or that of faith or Islamic one; and Caliphate takes shape in event of that getting activated, Caliphate becomes legitimate. From the other side, we believe that both Ali and Zahra were infallible and sincerely obedient to God. So:

Question 1: What was the reason in attacking Zahra’s house by the gang of Abu Bakr? Why the sanctity of Zahra’s privacy was trespassed and transgressed?

Question 2: What was the reason in the attack on the person of Zahra and hitting and beating her physically which resulted in her miscarriage ending in the martyrdom of Mohsin?

Question 3: What was the reason in tying rope around the neck of Ali and dragging him by force to the mosque?

Question 4: What was the reason in Ali’s firm and strong refusal to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Question 5: What was the reason in Ali’s invitation to Muhajireen and Ansaar for an armed uprising against Abu Bakr?

Question 6: What was the reason of bloody defense of Zahra in the matter of extracting Ali’s allegiance for Abu Bakr?

Question 7: What was the reason for such heavy wrath and anguish of Zahra against the Caliph and his associates?

Question 8: What was the reason in the early and untimely death of Zahra in the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate?

Question 9: What was the reason in Zahra being buried at night? What was the reason for Caliph and his colleagues not participating in burial ceremonies?

We leave the judgment to you; and find the conclusions yourself with the help of impartiality, sagacity and true information and justice.

We want all interested readers to answer these questions based on historical documents from Shia and Sunni sources. We invite them to refer to the following sources:

• Calamities of Zahra (Vol. 2) by Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili.

• The Agonies of Zahra translation of the above book by Muhammad Sepehri

• Attack on Fatima’s house by Shaykh Abdul Zahra Mahdi

• The Manifest proof of Zahra’s martyrdom by Ustad Ja’far Subhani

• Disappointment in Fire translation of the above book by Sayyid Abdul Hasan Imrani

• Darkness of Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Kareem Aqeeli

• Mohsin bin Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Mohsin Qataifi

• Where is Justice? Mohsin son of the Chief of Believers by Wafiq Saad Amali

• Pains of Fatima by Shaykh Abdullah Nasir

• Burning of Fatima’s house by Shaykh Husayn Ghaib Gholami

• Fire on the House of Revelation by Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Sajjad

• House on fire by Masoodpur Aghayee

• What happened to Fatima’s house? by Sayyid Abdul Hasan Husayni

• Martyrdom of my Mother Zahra by Ghulam Reza Ali Khan

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5 Pg. 176.

- 2. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 178.

- 3. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 181.

- 4. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 181.

- 5. Refer: Sayyid Hasan Fatemi: Danish Nama Imam Ali (Scholarship of Imam Ali), Vol. 8, Article: Saqifah, Mustafa Dilshaad Tehrani. Miraas Raboodah, Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah, Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob.

- 6. By the same argument can be rejected the analysis of gathering of Ansaar in Saqifah that:“Ansaar were supporters of Ali (‘a) and their aim in conglomerating in Saqifah was to take Caliphate from Muhajireen through Saad bin Ubadah and then transfer it to Ali (‘a). This is not at all acceptable”!

- 7. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 183.

- 8. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 183.

- 9. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 183.

- 10. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 187.

- 11. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 183.

- 12. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 176.

- 13. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 178.

- 14. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 181.

- 15. Ibid. Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issues 4-5, Pg. 181.

Addendum: Solution Of Shia To Create Islamic Unity

One of the questions that arises after criticism and analysis of theories of Islamic unity is the query about a sincere solution and action towards unity between Muslims of the world.

Particularly what is claimed by the movement in way of Islamic unity together with belief in refusing legitimacy of Caliphs’ government and showing it as usurpation. This generally seems impossible.

They say:

“This group if it wants insistence on first priority to attain unity, generally it seems impossible.”!1

Therefore, this addendum is written in such a circumstance taking into consideration necessity of preserving every faith’s position and refraining from disturbance to fundamentals of each faith of Islam. It has always had been ground of confirmation on part of those who wear the glitter of Islamic unity:

The aim by writing this short addendum is to remind about two points: It seems that attention to these points was a key to arguments relating to closeness. It has made the theory designers of unity needless from coining so many other issues to maintain original discipline and sincerity in this intellectual awakening.

So we are hopeful that these two reminders will come under the care of those who exert efforts for Islamic unity particularly those who to achieve this aim see themselves lenient towards beliefs and fundamentals of Shiaism.

First Point

Whenever there arises a word about unity and its factors or setback, it entails different views of Infallible Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of the Prophet and those of Sunni schools in field of Imamate and Caliphate. Both appear concomitant:

Perhaps one of the main reasons for this association could be existence of deep distance between issues of fundamentals of thought of these two schools. Besides, the social clash that is anticipated to come into being by these discussions. It has drawn the attention of revivalists of unity to subside the differences.

Of course to decrease differences entails showing fundamentals of Shia belief upside down in argument of Imamate and Caliphate! It creates a question mark over ideas of closeness while maintaining original standards of reality.

As is seen the worry and anxiety of this group of unity-seekers is to raise full set of fundamentals of jurisprudence of Shia school in this fundamental discussion so that analysis of Sunni outlook will subside totally. There will remain no room for any anxiety or setback in the way of unity.

We draw the attention of revivalists who sacrifice standards of sincerity and originality for finding a way of attaining Islamic unity to this point. Difference between fundamentals of principles of School of Infallible Ahlul Bayt and School of Caliphs in the field of Imamate and Caliphate is basic from Shia viewpoint. It constitutes the basic pillar of Islamic faith. But this difference according to Sunni belief is only a side and partial difference. It comes beneath the structure to a level of branch in practical chapter of enjoining good. They do not regard it so important. For them it does not demand tolerating the view of other party. Because of their belief, Shias may not become object of attack.

This kind of Sunni outlook in relation to this issue in Islamic teachings brings satisfaction to unity-seekers. Due to reason of a special conception of this type of discussions, that Sunnis have there is no ground to worry about matters that Shias produce will not disturb unity and will not create a dispute between faiths of Islam.

Had Sunnis been adherent to their own school’s theoretical fundamentals in this discussion, they would not have a negative outlook towards Shias because of these differences. On the other hand some activities of unity-seekers have become lenient to Shia fundamentals.

Therefore it can be proposed that Shias may invite to Islamic unity but at the same time the subject of Imamate and Caliphate too should be on agenda along with Sunni belief and thought. At the same time, they should be committed to not show any undesired reaction or unwanted sensitivity at any difference of beliefs. They should practically show constraint.

In other words, one of the active and energetic ways of revival of unity among Muslims Ummah is to make Sunnis committed to calm at argument of Imamate and Caliphate.

As you know, there are some evidences, which we shall refer to later. Difference in the issue of Imamate and Caliphate from Sunni viewpoint is like difference in jurisprudence among four faiths. They consider it at the level of jurisprudents in comparing authority in grasping the religious rulings or like jurisprudents of Hanafi and Shafei faiths on authoritative grounds.

Therefore, existence of such type of differences in jurisprudence among jurisprudents of Sunni sect (all of them are in branches of faith outside principles of their religion) gulf in unity would not occur. The subject of Imamate and Caliphate should not meet negative reaction. According to Sunni belief in practice too, the same attitude should be maintained. Imamate and Caliphate too is like other subjects as one of the side rulings and a jurisprudence branch. The differences therein however deep should not be a pretext to create disturbance in unity. In such a case, Sunnis from a practical commitment to their fundamentals of thought should be open to objections in belief and behavior.

In the end, to prove that Imamate and Caliphate is a branch and side issue from Sunni outlook we refer hereunder to few documents from Sunni sources.

Ghazzali in his book, Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad (Pg. 234) says:

“Beware that viewpoint in Imamate is not among important matters and it is not a part of sciences of reason. But it is one of the jurisprudential issues.”

Amadi in his book, Ghayatul Maram Fi Ilmul Kalam (Pg. 363) says:

“Beware! To talk about Imamate is not of religious faith and not from necessary matters unless it is an exceptional matter. Ignorance about it is not any religious shortcoming.”

Eji in the book Al-Mawaafiq (Pg. 395) says:

“We regard Imamate as a branch issue. If we mention it in our book of belief we do it by way of following our predecessors.”

Taftazani in his book, Sharh Maqasid (Vol. 2, Pg. 271) says:

“There is no doubt that Imamate is more suitable to be a branch of faith because appointment of an Imam with specified qualities is Wajib Kifai (an obligation sufficient if one performs it – others are exempted).”2

Second Point

Another argument launched by some unity-seekers, which they consider as a block on way of Islamic unity is the Shia outlook regarding practical application and type of executing the main element of Baraat in life of faith and belief of a Shia regarding the “lack of justice of some Prophetic companions” under the title of effects and fruits of discussion about “Imamate and Caliphate” in Islam.

On the other hand it was supposed that such type of views would bring forth negative reactions of Sunni sect. Therefore, we witness reverse efforts of Shia in this chapter of Shia belief.

Whatever negative stand towards Islamic unity comes into being in this field from side of Sunni sect is against their fundamental belief in the issue of ‘excused and paid’ of the status of a jurisprudent that is a matter of acceptance and attention of unity-seekers.3

According to this outlook, Shia belief in argument of justice of Prophet’s companions and Baraat has Quranic backing. It follows a particular line of thought in this subject. In fact, it is regarded as a salient application of jurisprudence. Suppose if Shia might have gone astray in this jurisprudence it should, from the Sunni viewpoint, embrace the formula of a jurisprudent being excused.

By this way, one obstacle in way of Islamic unity is simply removed. Therefore, there is no need to reverse Shia fundamentals of neither belief nor necessity to make Shia refrain to act on his own jurisprudence.

In other words, one of the practical solutions for Islamic unity is to make Sunni sect committed to honor their own belief regarding error in jurisprudence in the face of Shia outlooks opposing their thoughts.

This solution is several times more transparent and effective than efforts for creating a change in Shia fundamentals in these subjects.

However, Imamiyah belief in these subjects is very much alive on pillars of logic and proof of their own jurisprudence taking in view the Sunni idea that results of jurisprudence must be respected in way of Islamic unity. So the discussion of error in jurisprudence and a mistaken jurisprudence is excused and is from settled principles agreeable to School of Caliphate.

Historical evidences indicate that the very first person who founded this formula is Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahafa.

About the criminal conduct of Khalid towards Malik bin Nuwairah and his family members he said: ‘He did Ijtihaad and made a mistake’ or ‘He concluded and erred.’4

This belief took hold among Sunni scholars and entailed the following:

Ibn Hazm (456 year) introduced Abul Ghadia who had killed Ammar Yasir as a jurisprudent and one deserving reward from God.

Ibn Turkamani Hanafi (750 Year) became a follower of Ibn Hazm. Both of them (Ibn Hazm and Ibn Turkamani) extolled Ibn Muljim Muradi for Imam Ali’s (‘a) assassination and introduced him as a jurisprudent.

Ibn Hajar (852 year) considers all opponents, adversaries and enemies of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) in battles of Siffeen, Jamal and Nahrawan as men of jurisprudence and described them as jurisprudents who erred and ones who have one reward from God.5

Similarly, Ibn Hajar believes with regards to Muawiyah and Amr Aas about the bloodshed that they were jurisprudents.

As Muftis reach their personal conclusion (i.e. Ijtihaad) and sometimes two Muftis differ in their judgments – one says a magician must be killed while the other does not accept it. The deeds of Muawiyah and Amr Aas were also like this.6

If it is so the Sunni sect must look upon Shia in their judgment and belief regarding justice of some companions and Baraat under formula of Ijtihaad; at least they maybe regarded as erring jurisprudents that are excused and rewarded.

Anyway, an advantage must be drawn to the benefit of avoiding reaction and creating calm. This formula must be used towards creating nearness. There remains no need to create a change in principles of Shia belief and in fundamentals of Shia thought.

As long as Sunnis are committed to their belief about excuse of a jurisprudent they should not act otherwise. This will not create any distance in Islamic unity.

Therefore, as long as the Sunni sect, as a party in the differences, believes discussions about Imamate and Caliphate as branch matters and their belief in a jurisprudent being excused one, they accept the mistake in jurisprudence. We must not witness their impoliteness about treating Shia beliefs.

On the other hand Ja’fari jurisprudence is acted upon only by Shias and it respects the sanctity of life and property of everyone who acknowledges the oneness of God and Muhammad’s Prophethood. He is supposed to enjoy all rights by Islam. It honors even an outward appearance of Islam. So this peace cannot be shattered.

In Ja’fari jurisprudence, the outward appearance of Islam has validity. It embraces all faiths of Islam under its own ruling:

Respect to life, property and conjugal ties of every Muslim though he may be only so outwardly, are guaranteed. The meat he has slaughtered is allowed to be eaten. Marriage with him or her is permitted. Transactions are permitted with him. All civil rights are reserved to him such as applying to court of law or carrying out sentence for or against him. Details of all such ruling are present in books of religious laws. Shias regard his judgments with respect for safety of unity.

- 1. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Nos. 4-5, Pg. 181.

- 2. All these narrations are taken from the book, Dar Sar Zameen-e-Khatiraha, (Which is text of the lecture of Ustad Ja’far Subhani in Yarmok college).

- 3. Refer: Waizzaada Khorasani: Nida-e-Wahdat (Call for Unity), Pgs. 178- 180 & Pgs. 3, 27, 28, 101.

- 4. Refer: Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 199 onwards.

- 5. Refer: Ibid. Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pg. 92.

- 6. Refer: Ibid. Pg. 105.

End: Reflection On Shia Ideal Of Islamic Unity In The Zahra’s Speech (S.A.)

In the end we refer to some extracts of Zahra’s speech, which is famous by the name of Fadak speech, and close our criticism and analysis:

As we all know this great lady of Islam went to the mosque to demand the usurped rights of Ali. In the presence of Helpers and Emigrants the lady addressed Abu Bakr and made him the target of her complaints and anguish. She demanded Fadak from him to make his usurpation public.

Therefore, she delivered a long sermon in which she sketched the only way of avoiding differences; such as:

“Almighty God had made following us system for community 1 (cause of co-operation) and our leadership a barrier to disunity.” 2

Disturbance in outlooks of seekers of Islamic unity and their daily increased insistence in belittling the position of Shia arguments about Imamate and Caliphate do not carry any fruitful result to them. But it results in forgetting the Holy text and God’s decree and deviation in rightful Shia beliefs. To them it will give no benefit except suspicion among Shias and a distinction to Sunnis. It is a self-indication that the only way left open to real Islamic unity and waiving off separation is to return to original principle and to place trust in it. Turning back on it has brought forth disunity.

Indeed this real principle is the same Imamate and Wilayat of Infallible Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of the Prophet. Ghadeer is forgotten amidst the din of devils and the Ummah has plunged into disunity.

Therefore, Imamate of the Infallible Proof is the only pivot of unity.

- 1. Community is in the meaning of custom or system.

- 2. Mahdi Ja’fari: Mastoora Aaftaab-e-Sarmad, Pgs. 158-159 quoting from Ibn Teefoor, Balaghatun Nisa (Eloquence of Women), Pg. 12; Jauhari: Saqifah wa Fadak, Pg. 98; Ibn Abi Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 16, Pg. 211.
For the text of this sermon refer to the book of Sadaai Fatimi Fadak, written by Muhammad Baqir Ansaari and Sayyid Husayn Rajai.

A Victim Lost in Saqifah Vol. 2

Discourse 1: Criticism And Investigation About Propaganda Of Silence Of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Doubts Created Regarding Silence Of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Deviated analyses regarding the silence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) can be divided into three categories:

First Category: Conjectures That Claim ‘Letting Go Of Caliphate Linked With Consent’

One of the most important deviated consequences of this conjecture is release of Abu Bakr’s regime from the circle of usurpation and granting legitimacy to his Caliphate.

This partiality in the sources of Ahlul Sunnat has succeeded in giving false coverings based on ‘immediate Bay’at’ of His Eminence, to Abu Bakr.

By the same argument, sometimes instead of ‘Letting go of Caliphate linked with consent’ they talk about ‘Willful Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to Abu Bakr’ and that also in the initial period of his Caliphate!

Style Of Criticizing The First Category Of Conjectures

Style Of Criticizing The First Category Of Conjectures 1

Absurd claims of ‘Willing renouncement of Caliphate’ can be reviewed on the basis of two kinds of authentic documents2:

A) Documents indicating ‘efforts of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in bringing down the usurped caliphate of Abu Bakr’.

B) Documents indicating ‘Forced demand of Bay’at’ and ‘severe opposition of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from accepting it’.

Second Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Detachment of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from Caliphate and overlooking it, after six months of Abu Bakr’ Caliphate’

One of the most important evil results of these doubts is forgetting the historical documents regarding attack on the house of Fatima (s.a.).

Because in this deviated partiality that talks of the allegiance of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to Abu Bakr after some months they have very cleverly put a lid on the oppressions and plots that were the highlights of the initial period of Abu Bakr’s rule.

In the same way among the other deviated repercussions of this conjecture is that it becomes the basis to subsequent claims of ‘good relations of Ali and Caliphs’. This also goes a long way in making all forget the terrible crimes committed by usurpers of Caliphate in the initial period.

Style Of Criticizing The Second Category Of Conjectures

Absurd claim of ‘gradual withdrawal of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from Caliphate and overlooking it’ although after passing of some months in the Caliphate of Abu Bakr can be evaluated in the following two ways:

A) Criticism and analysis of ‘False narrations about the willful allegiance of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to Abu Bakr after six months’.3

B) Criticism and analysis of ‘Conjectures regarding the co-operation of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with Caliphs’.4

Third Category: Conjectures That Claim ‘Absence Of Plan Of Right Of Caliphate And Not Proving The School Of Imamate’.

These conjectures, sometimes are posed in an indirect way and under the ‘conjectures of two previous categories’ and sometimes also regarding ‘refusal to prove the Alawi Imamate and Wilayat’.

The aim of posing such types doubts is ‘To invite Shias to observe silence from planning discussions related to Caliphate and Successorship of Amirul Momineen (‘a)’.

Style Of Criticizing The Third Category Of Conjectures

Absurd claims of ‘Refusal of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from plan of the right of Caliphate and his remaining silent from explaining the School of Imamate’ can be criticized on the basis of ‘debates of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a)’ with support of ‘statements of His Eminence (‘a) in the matter of his severe struggle of having his claim recorded in History’.5

Did Amirul Momineen (‘a) Leave Caliphate And Overlook His Rights?

Analyses of unity-seekers regarding the political and social stances of Amirul Momineen (‘a) after passing away of Prophet are quite untrue and far from reality because they have compared it to ‘silence’.

The prime aim of those who inject this suspicion about the silence is to interpret it to effect of foregoing his right and overlooking to demand it. They sketch in a way that the reader concludes that His Eminence (‘a) did not take any action against usurpation of his right. He also impeded others to take any action in this respect.

The scope of these conjectures has spread to such an extent that they claim:

“Caliphate was the very first issue on which Imam Ali (‘a) maintained silence in his attitude towards it. He did not allow anyone to make Caliphate a ground for difference in the Ummah or utilize the situation to their own benefit.”!6

To check and scrutinize this suspicion first it is necessary to see that the conjecture-coiner has so misused events of history that he has reached to this deviation:

“He did not allow anyone to make Caliphate a ground for difference”!

Study of historical events that occurred after Saqifah Bani Saada show that:

“When Abu Sufyan became aware of the event of Saqifah. He voiced national and racial motives and said to Ali: Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you. I swear by God if you want I will fill up Medina with warriors and horses…Ali rejected the offer. By this he showed that in his political school it was not correct to take advantage of everything for the sake of aim. Ali had no doubt that the right was his. But to reach it he did not see proper to use whatever means possible. So understanding Abu Sufyan’s intention, he refused him. The aim of Abu Sufyan was to create differences, corruption and battle among Muslims. Therefore Ali terms this act of Abu Sufyan as malefic and mischievous.”7

This is the only case where Ali has shown his disagreement with support expressed to him. So it seems that the suspect has based his suspicion thereat; and makes it a proof to support the idea. In fact the reaction of Ali was against military support of Abu Sufyan. It also was to defeat his intention of seizing complete power or taking share for Bani Umayyah.8

According to this analysis, the reaction of Ali cannot be attributed to his agreement to usurpation of Caliphate.

Correct Analysis About Ali’s Reaction To Usurpation Of Caliphate

Why Ali did not show negative reaction (similar to one referred) to his friends’ support, had his purpose been silence against usurpation of his right? If the aim of Imam Ali (‘a) was silence what about the program that accompanied his claim to take back his right; what would it mean?

“Ali did not accept allegiance of Abu Sufyan. On the other hand he strongly refrained from paying allegiance to the new authority of Abu Bakr. So he showed his rejection.”9

“Acquisition of power and uniting his friends, were his other steps. When Bay’at of Abu Bakr took place, Ali (‘a) began to mobilize his friends, and in this matter he was morally and personally supported by his wife, Fatima, the daughter of Prophet (S).”10

“From this stage onwards the campaign of Ali appears more serious and ardent. It takes to itself a special feature against the new regime. The house of Prophet’s daughter defended him; Fatima herself came out as a powerful support to Ali. On some cases, she takes the initiative to express her opposition to the extent of physical brawl.”11

“In order to take back his lost right Ali even invited people to pay allegiance to him.”

Among the actions that Imam Ali (‘a) undertook was that he and wife kept visiting the gatherings of Ansaar and asking for their support.”12

In order to finalize his argument on Muslim and not to leave any room to posterity to interpret wrongly his silence as concurrence with new order and his withdrawal willingly from his right to lead Islamic Mission, he kept visiting the houses of Muslims in Medina. He reminded them about the words and recommendations of Prophet concerning succession after him. He insisted on them to give him a hand in returning Caliphate to its real and correct tract.”13

“In the very early days when the Ummah had gone astray and perverted he took his sons, Hasan and Husayn and his wife, Fatima and kept knocking door after door of Ansaar (Helpers). It is remarkable to mention here that he was blamed for being too greedy for Caliphate because of his persistence on his right, which he wanted history to record.”14

“Therefore from each step he took, it becomes evident that his uprising was against backward movement to days of ignorance prior to Islam.”15

“If actions of Imam (‘a) had not been there in this regard it might have happened that people would have doubted in his being immediate Caliph of Prophet and the possibility would have strengthened that the Messenger of Allah (S) has abrogated his insistence on Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (‘a).”16

“He knew very well that his silence might cause the people, under the influence of false propaganda of usurpers, to think that he was supporting the Saqifah matter hence in order to put into record his actual stance he broke his silence.”17

“In this matter the close friends of His Eminence (‘a) cooperated with him. And the close companions of Prophet like Abu Dharr, Salman, Khalid bin Saeed, Abu Ayyub Ansaari, Uthman bin Haneef, Baraa bin Azib – all these gathered in the mosque. They sincerely declared their support to Ali bin Abi Talib (‘a).”18

“They launched arguments and put forth such reasoning advocating the right of Ali that Abu Bakr could not dare to come out of his house for three days. Till on the third day his colleagues went to his house with naked swords and brought him out at the point of sword. They seated him at the pulpit of the Prophet. They threatened others by sword that no one had a right to talk about the subject. In modern terms a censorship was imposed.

From this point no one moved or spoke.”19

All these historical evidences show that the Imam did not leave any stone unturned in defending Alawi School and Imamate. According to conditions of those times, he did whatever was possible to him. He did not sit idle to see his right usurped. But Muslims had gone somnolent and sluggish. They stooped to wrong but did not erect their backs to support the truth.

Historical evidences regarding his sharp debates prove this point:

“Abu Bakr in the early days of Caliphate sent the following message to the Imam: Do comply with request of Caliph of the Prophet of Allah and pay allegiance to him. Imam told the messenger: How soon you attribute a lie to the Messenger of Allah (S). He and his supporters know well that Allah and His Messenger has not installed as Caliph anyone except me.20

When they took the Imam to the Mosque he began the dialogue and asked Abu Bakr: Did you not pay allegiance to me yesterday at the command of the Prophet of Allah?21

Then the Imam addressed the audience in the mosque reminding them of all that the Prophet had said about him. He also reminded them of the event of Ghadeer and the Prophet’s words regarding him on that occasion.

All agreed and acknowledged Ali’s veracity. Even Abu Bakr acknowledged having had paid allegiance to Ali.22

Zaid bin Arqam says that twelve tribal chiefs were present there who attested the words of Imam Ali (‘a). Gradually the argument got hotter and a row and din arose in the Masjid. Umar feared that people will go to Ali’s side. So he upset the gathering and people left the mosque.23”24

These historical documents show that His Eminence (‘a) in the most severe conditions; that is in the time when they demanded him to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr under threat to his life, argued the validity of his Caliphate and spoke in support of the School of Imamate and Alawi Caliphate. He tried to regain his usurped position in every way.

“Ali (‘a) always during the Caliphate of Caliphs never refrained from expressing the matter that Caliphate was a right linked to him.”25

Ali (‘a) did not refrain from expressing and demanding his rights and complaining against those who had usurped it. He was very vocal about his demands and he did not consider it to be an impediment to Muslim unity.”26

“To think that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) did not mention anything about his rightfulness is a view opposed to historical reality.”27

Careful scrutiny of recorded narrations clearly shows that His Eminence never abandoned his rights and did not overlook them at all and he never left them to the discretion of the Caliphs and he was not at all silent about them. Although it is a matter of regret that they have altered the public debates of His Eminence (‘a) that took place among the Muslims. Thus it is said:

“Indeed during the period of Caliphs, in the consultant committees and among the special companions he debated about his rights, but he did not do so among the general populace of Muslims! Because he feared sedition and movement against the machinery of Caliphate and due to this in my personal view and confessions of some researchers of the story of Ghadeer, he remained silent about the divine right of the Wilayat of Ahlul Bayt.”!2829

On the basis of this conjecture, firstly:

Obvious steps and repeated public debates of His Eminence (‘a) are shown to be special and private discussions; as if His Eminence (‘a) did not lay the foundation of awakening of the people!

Absence of an open and widespread revolt of the Imam (‘a) and his refraining from a large scale attack on the regime is interpreted to be an effort for keeping the Caliphs safe!

Yes, this conjecture creates such a picture in the mind of readers that Imam (‘a) was never vocal in public about the divine right of his Imamate and Wilayat.

Now that if continuous and repeated efforts of the Imam in creating awareness had not been witnessed its evidence would have needed to be obtained from somewhere else (other than silence before the usurpation of Caliphate).

Certainly, it must be asked:

“Did the people of that time forget all that the Messenger of Allah (S) had told about his cousin, Ali (‘a)? And they were waiting for Ali (‘a) to remind and awaken them to honor his rights?

They detachment from Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) was not due to their complete ignorance about the moral status of His Eminence so that on hearing about his victimization they would wake up and rise up in his support.

His mission was not like the proclamation of the Messenger of Allah (S) in the beginning that he should be in search for supporters in his mission of spreading Islam.

In the days following the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) those who wanted made Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) their leader. They knew him as was necessary and those who followed others were not such that with a single call of Ali for help they would rise up in his support and harness the motives of his opposition.”

Conclusion

Interpretation of silence of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) by the partiality regarding ‘overlooking Caliphate and abandoning willingly and also absence of his expression of his right of Caliphate’ is against historical evidences and realities and evidences for protecting Islamic unity cannot conceal these types of deviations in analysis of historical events. Yet they claim:

“The Imam according to his own account held his hand and kindly let go of his right! Because the wellbeing and benefit of the religion necessitated his painful silence and abandoning! A right whose eligibility was confirmed in his own view as well by others”!

“When some people usurped the absolute right of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), he could have risen up against them in an armed uprising, but only for the sake of complete wellbeing of Islam and guarding the unity and integration of Muslims and that the fresh converts do not go back to their infidelity and the enemies of Islam may not get a chance to benefit from the situation and that the new faith of Islam may not be destroyed in the nascent stage, he overlooked his absolute right”!

“Ali (‘a) for the sake of Islamic unity abandoned his own right and that of his wife! He bore failures and hardships but in all his dealings preferred unity and oneness of Muslims and also made his wife and sons observe this.”!

“And in this way he renounced divine text (Nass) of his successorship, which his friends and relatives use as proof.”!

“Inspite of being obdurate on their rights till that time, they overlooked it.”!

Correct Interpretation Ali’s Silence And Its Causes

Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) from the aspect of fulfilling the duty entrusted to the position of Imamate and on the path of protecting religion that he had received from the Almighty30 assumed a special demeanor to react to the usurpation of Caliphate and the usurpers – especially after the attack on Fatima’s house31 – which is termed as silence.

Silence of the Imam was not in the sense to give up his right to Caliphs, or to refrain from making any claim. He remained silent only in the sense that he did not undertake an armed uprising against the usurped Caliphate – and that also after opposing vehemently for twenty days against usurpation of Caliphate and a widespread effort to announce illegality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

“In every way Imam Ali (‘a) tried to bring Caliphate to its rightful place, but some Muslims were instrumental in assuring that the Imam does not achieve his purpose.

If His Eminence (‘a) had continued his opposition he would not have succeeded in sidelining Abu Bakr, rather his own life would have been endangered.”32

“A third point also exists and it was the awe and terror that the machinery of the ruler had imposed on Islamic society.”33

For example:

“After paying allegiance to Abu Bakr some people of Saqifah rose against Abu Bakr. Upon direction of Umar, a group of people kicked and crushed Habbab bin Mundhir under their feet. Dust was poured in his mouth and his nose was broken

Saad bin Ubadah was kicked until he reached the frontiers of death.

If anyone raised his voice, immediately his mouth was filled with dust.

On the return route of Muhajireen to Mosque, associates of Umar stopped everyone and pulled each of them and touched his hand to Abu Bakr’s as a token of paying allegiance to him and then left him.

In that scuffle Bani Aslam tribe of desert-dwellers entered Medina as the chief of Muhajireen had promised to give plenty of provision to them if they helped. They started beating the people with canes, sticks and lances without a pretext or a warning unless they paid allegiance to the new Caliph.

Umar often used to say: I became sure of our victory only on arrival of Bani Aslam in Medina.

They were in a pact with Emigrants. They were so many that lanes and streets of Medina were blocked.”34

“The fact is that their efforts imbued with tyranny and torture had gone so far as to prepare the old category of Prophet’s companions to discard Ahlul Bayt of Prophet including the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, from government. Such was their determination. Imam Ali (‘a) was not ignorant of this reality. This too was among the reasons that discouraged Ali to take a practical step towards taking back what was usurped from him.”35

On the basis of this:

“His Eminence keeping in view the political realities of that Muslim society considered it better to remain patient because every action needed power and he believed that at that time he was not having such a power.”36

“His Eminence, Muhammad (S) had told Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) about such circumstances and said that…the people after his passing away would cheat him. ‘If you get supporters you stage an uprising and if not you remain silent.’”37

“In our view silence of the Imam denotes refraining from armed uprising. And if not, His Eminence never refrained from raising his claim throughout period of Caliphs and after that also he always referred to it.”38

“There is no doubt that if the son of Abu Talib before he did that called people to help him his opponents would have tried more to trample his rights and the rights of the family of the Prophet.”39

Under conditions that developed, any kind of armed uprising would only have resulted in bloodshed of His Eminence (‘a).

It is natural that such a thing would have served as an excellent opportunity for fulfillment of the wishes of senior righteous persons! For which they had spent years around the Prophet put on a show of piety in a hypocritical manner.

Following the martyrdom of the son of Abu Talib – which would also have been accompanied by the martyrdom of his few loyal companions – the Emigrant hypocrites would have removed their veil of piety that had concealed their real faces. Not only were they capable of bloodshed of the Imam by ‘public deception’ they would have got a free hand to uproot the faith of Islam. The stages of deviation would have been crossed more swiftly and in a short time no trace of real teachings of Islam would have remained.

On the other hand the Umayyad party under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, seeing the field empty from the real supporter of religion of Islam (Ali Ibn Abi Talib) and his loyal Shias, would have again resumed their struggle to regain power and they would have gradually taken the Muslim society to idol worship and apostasy.

In other words, within a short period of martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (‘a) the religion of Islam would have been completely destroyed.

Therefore with one glance of impartiality without any historical emotionality we will realize that the safety of Islam from being destroyed was directly linked to the security of the life of Amirul Momineen (‘a).

The proof of abstinence of Imam (‘a) from Jihad that required martyrdom, the secret of bloodied supports and defenses of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) for the life of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and also initiatives of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) in the period of confrontation with the tyrant ruler should also be searched in this same point.

Amirul Momineen (‘a) And His Stern Refusal To Pay Allegiance To Abu Bakr

Absence of silence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) against usurpation of Caliphate and the level of correctness of the claim of ‘kindly leaving his right to the Caliphs’ can be seen in the incident of attack on Fatima’s house and the severity of His Eminence (‘a) against paying allegiance to Abu Bakr.40

“Abu Bakr and Umar with complete knowledge about the rights of Ali (‘a) and the special reverence he enjoyed among Prophet’s companions, invited him to the mosque to pay allegiance to the Caliph to avoid any reverse reaction from old companions, which was a great source of fear to them. But His Eminence (‘a) clearly refused to go to the mosque and in reply said:

I have more right to Caliphate; I will not pay allegiance to you and you should come and give Bay’at to me…

But Umar bin Khattab told Ali (‘a): Unless you don’t pay allegiance we shall not let you go. Umar was most active to obtain Ali’s allegiance and was directing the affairs. Ali told him: Milk the she-camel because there is a share in it for you. You try to strengthen Abu Bakr because Caliphate goes to you tomorrow. Thus he tried to reject the allegiance of the ruler in every way…”41

Even then it is claimed:

“Ali, with a lofty nature and enduring sacrifice for this religion and with utmost care that not the smallest difference should arise between the companions, without any hesitation pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr!... Ali in reply said… If I did not consider Abu Bakr worthy of this matter! I would never have left the Caliphate to him…Hazrat Ali gave allegiance one or two days after the passing away of the Prophet! And only this is a fact…”!42

“Following Ali’s oppositions, he and his companions gathered in Fatima’s house. Umar who followed the policy of force, advised Abu Bakr to make haste in getting Ali’s allegiance lest things take a turn. Therefore he surrounded the house with armed men and threatened to burn the house if they do not come out and pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. This shows how much Ali’s disapproval to the new regime was critical. Umar in order to fulfill his threat got ready with the elementary things. Fuel wood was gathered. He was about to set fire when he was told that Fatima was inside. He said: So what?

But nothing of this compelled Ali to come out for paying allegiance. This shows Ali’s obstinacy against usurpation of rulership.

Umar once more recommended Abu Bakr to get Ali’s pledge of allegiance at any rate. Therefore Abu Bakr once again summoned Ali (‘a) but Ali (‘a) in reply to the message that the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (S) is calling you said: How soon you have attributed falsehood to the Messenger of Allah (S).

But Umar did not give up. Again he insisted on Abu Bakr that he must not give any respite to Ali (‘a) and Abu Bakr again sent Ali the request to give allegiance but Ali once more rejected it absolutely and said: You are claiming something which is not yours. Umar could not bear this. Therefore taking support of the political situation of that time and with drawn sword he surrounded the house of Ali (‘a) and demanded that he pay allegiance and warned that if he desisted he would be killed and ultimately Ali was forced to come out and was taken to the mosque.

This event nicely proves how strongly Ali opposed them and the usurpation of Caliphate.”43

Inspite of this they claim:

“He surrendered Caliphate to Abu Bakr and Umar for the sake of Muslim unity.”!44

“He surrendered Caliphate to Abu Bakr for the well being of Muslims, for religious solution of the problem and to attract the hearts of common Muslims.”!45

Ali, with his own will and not submitting to the circumstances remained at the side of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate; gave his complete assistance! And always kept himself at the disposal of the Caliph to solve difficulties.”!46

If such was the case why he was so obstinate? Why he was so much restive? On the other hand why he was threatened? Why Fatima’s house was set on fire? The door was opened by force under flames. Fatima was behind the door. The hurt resulted in the martyrdom of Mohsin and then her martyrdom later. What does it all show?

Do these claims not aim to exonerate the Caliphs from crimes they committed against Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of Prophet where Divine Revelations descended with the Archangel?

Obviously it is only this; because inspite of evidences that History has recorded it is still claimed that:

“Ali by his silence of some years put a stamp of approval on Caliphate of all three Caliphs.”!47

Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Declaration of Illegitimacy of Caliphate

To gauge the level of correctness of the last conjecture it is sufficient that we do not forget what the answer of the Imam was to proposal of Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the six-person Shura committee for appointment of Caliph after Umar.

“With all the same precaution that Imam had taken, in the period of Shura for Caliphate, he did not agree to the conditions of Abdur Rahman bin Auf for acceptance of Caliphate…this was an open rejection of the Imam (‘a) of the practice and behavior of Abu Bakr and Umar.”48

“This shows that Ali did not attach any religious legitimacy to Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar. And in order to explain it he announced his opposition to their policies and ruling practices.”49

In the same way after the assassination of Uthman and public allegiance to Ali we witnessed that:

“A man was insistent that besides Quran and traditions of Prophet he (Ali) should also follow conduct of the two – i.e. Abu Bakr and Umar. But the Imam did not agree and he said:

Even if Abu Bakr and Umar did not act on anything except according to Quran and Prophet’s tradition they were not right.”50

On the basis of this even after passage of some years, not only did Amirul Momineen (‘a) not put a stamp of approval on their regime, rather with complete openness he pointed out the illegality of their Caliphate and declared them to be foundation of falsehood; even then it is claimed that:

“He found many proceedings of Umar similar to his own attitude.”!51

“The proceeds of the two52 were so close to each other that they provided a frame to political affairs in accordance with each other.”! 53

Final Judgment on Silence of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Perhaps in a first glance it is pictured that Amirul Momineen (‘a) did not display any reaction and took no step against the usurpation of Caliphate and he did not take any step against the illegal regime of Abu Bakr.

While historical evidences clearly show that His Eminence (‘a) cleared his stance by starting scathing debates and protests against the tyranny of the ruler – and that also from the Prophet’s mosque.

These firebrand speeches were delivered on Monday and Tuesday; that is the day of the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the next day; that is the first day of the Abu Bakr’s illegal regime to get back his right of Caliphate.

Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the background of these scathing protests spoke about his usurped rights in the most open manner. And he emphasized on the illegality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and showed that it was usurped.

Following the efforts of the regime for taking forced allegiance from the people of Medina which was helped by the intervention of Bani Aslam tribe on the first day of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate (Tuesday), the residence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Fatima (s.a.) [house of Fatima] became the fort of some people who refused to give allegiance to the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Opponents who were armed according to some clear historical evidences.

Movement of ‘opponents of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate’ to and fro the house of Fatima and their taking asylum in it was not unknown to the Caliph and his supporters.

So much so that some historical documents mention dominant factors of Caliph’s supports in the gathering of the refugees and also mention the presence of potentially dangerous personages like Talha and Saad bin Abi Waqqas.

In the end the fort of this group was broken down when the Caliph’s men surrounded Fatima’s house and Umar threatened to burn it down.

With attention to some points it can be said that: This asylum was in force for a maximum period of three days at the end of which when the house was surrounded by Umar’s men and they put the door to fire this was finally over on Friday (fourth day after the Prophet’s demise). And only Ali (‘a) remained in security from the attackers with the special support of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.).

Although this barricade was broken by the threats of Umar to burn down the house the small gathering of opponents of Bay’at of Abu Bakr was disintegrated. But this terrible incident did not in the least weaken the resolve of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) to bring down Abu Bakr’s regime.

The city of Medina on the fifth day after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) witnessed new steps from Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Hazrat Zahra (s.a.).

The first important incident during these days (from the fifth to the seventh after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah) were of soliciting help at night.

According to some authentic historical documents, Amirul Momineen (‘a) accompanied by Hazrat Zahra (s.a.), for three continuous nights to visit the houses of Emigrants and Helpers asking them for their support in bringing down the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

Along with these nightly seeking of help – which was in fact a call for Jihad – Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) began her propaganda to expose the real face of Caliph by protesting against the usurpation of her monetary rights.

These monetary demands – which continued for many days by the help and support of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) – first of all included the demand of her inheritance and share of relatives of the Prophet. Monetary demands of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) fell like a hammer on the head of the Caliphal regime – the culmination of which on the tenth day after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) was the fiery sermon of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) in the Prophet’s Mosque, called the Fadak sermon.

In the same way according to some historical evidences, Imam Ali (‘a) also on the ninth day after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (S) delivered a speech and again in the evening addressed the Emigrants and Helpers for the fourth time, urging them to render help to dethrone Abu Bakr.

Although these solicitations also like the previous ones remained unanswered and only a few companions volunteered to come forward and help the rightful successor of the Messenger of Allah (S).

This sluggishness and sloth in helping Amirul Momineen (‘a) was so bitter and painful that Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) in some of her addresses in the Prophet’s Mosque in particular flayed the Helpers by quoting the Quranic verse of ‘then fight the leaders of unbelief…”54 and again urged them to help them against the tyrant regime.

We can dare say that the ten days (after the Prophet’s passing) were days of culmination of helplessness, solitude and victimization of the Family of Revelation (‘a).

Among the painful events of the days following was the confiscation of Fadak Orchards which most probably occurred on the fifteenth day after the Prophet.

That Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) were not unaware of the intention of the Caliph to confiscate Fadak is obvious from some statements of Umar bin Khattab. Therefore Hazrat Zahra (s.a.), immediately after demanding her inheritance set out to prove her ownership of Fadak Orchards and demanded that they be restored to her.

On one hand the support and backing of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) and on the other the terror of the regime of awakening the people’s thinking leading to ousting of Abu Bakr from power, especially after the speeches of twelve prominent companions of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the Prophet’s Mosque, compelled the Caliph and his supporters to enact the siege of Fatima’s house and force Ali (‘a) to pay allegiance.

Therefore, we see that the first fortnight of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate began with direct orders of the Caliph to subdue Ali (‘a) and force allegiance from him and it ended with the blood-filled defense of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.).

That which is most worthy of attention in these events is the determination of Amirul Momineen (‘a) against paying Bay’at in spite of the obstinacy and ferocity of the Caliph’s party men.

Severe opposition of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) from accepting the demands of Caliph’s attackers and his determination against their request, which was accompanied by the blood-smeared defense of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.); tell us about the height of Ahlul Bayt’s opposition to the regime.

A delicate point that is noticed in the above events is hopelessness of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from the possibility of deposing the usurped Caliphate of Abu Bakr, especially ten days after the Prophet. Because during the ten days all the petitions of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) to the people had not produced any results. And there was no chance of armed uprising.

Once again it is worth noting that:

Armed Jihad for deposing Abu Bakr’s Caliphate would have made sense only if His Eminence (‘a) had sufficient power to confront the regime.

Because the aim of armed uprising was not only confronting the tyrant rule, rather it should really succeed in deposing the tyrant ruler and putting Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the seat of power and in control of circumstances.

Therefore if it did not result in deposition of Abu Bakr and accession of Ali (‘a) it was very much likely that it would have brought the martyrdom of Ali (‘a) and his companions or their absolute defeat. And this would not have resulted in anything but deviation and destruction of Islam.

As we have said before, if in this uprising, His Eminence, Ali (‘a), due to the paucity of supporters had reached martyrdom, the aged companions of Prophet, who had made a show of piety all these years, would have got all the chance to strengthen their position and initiated the distortion of Islamic values as result of which in a short time no trace of original Islam (Shiaism) would have remained.

Although another possibility was there that after the martyrdom of Ali (‘a) the Bani Umayyad party under the leadership of Abu Sufyan would have renewed their efforts to regain their lost power as a result of which following the downfall of Islam people would have reverted to idol worship and ignorance.

In the same way it must be remembered that even if the Imam and his men had succeeded in defeating Abu Bakr and his supporters but failed to take control of the situation, it might have developed into civil war and maybe furthered by Bani Umayyah and Abu Sufyan thus resulting in utter chaos and even the martyrdom of Ali (‘a) at the hands of Umayyads.

In other words, on one side the fervor of Imam’s companions and on the other the determination of the Caliph’s party to retain their hold on power would have resulted in complete disorder ending in the destruction of Islam in only fifteen days of Prophet’s demise. Hence the security of Islam was very much linked to the security of the life of Amirul Momineen (‘a).

It was for this reason that after the first fortnight Amirul Momineen (‘a) contained his aspirations of deposing Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and he directed his efforts in supporting the demands of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.). In other words Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) began her efforts to demand her rights from Abu Bakr after the first week of his Caliphate.

On the basis of this after feeble response of people to help him, Ali (‘a) decided to follow the second half of the will of the Prophet and that was to observe patience.

It is obvious that patience was dictated by demands of action and not of belief. And it could not be equated with armed uprising, that also without sufficient supporters. But this patience could also not be construed as ‘surrendering Caliphate’ or ‘refraining from espousing the right of Caliphate and abstaining from explaining the School of Imamate’. It cannot be analyzed in this wrong way.

On the whole it can be said:

The link between ‘safety of Islam’ and ‘security of Imam’s life’ appeared in the beginning period of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

With the difference that in the initial days Amirul Momineen (‘a) was in opposition to Abu Bakr while Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) acted as his protector and defender, but after one week, when there was no response from the people and the severity of Caliph’s men also increased to subdue him, (day signaling the beginning of the period of patience and silence) Hazrat Zahra (s.a.), in addition of the responsibility of protecting the life of Amirul Momineen (‘a) also assumed the role of opposition to the tyrant regime. His Eminence, Ali (‘a) intentionally took up the defense and support of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) in her steps and this continued to the last.

The above analysis was done on the basis of following sources:

1 – Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, (Vols. 28-29)

2 – Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Darasata wa Tahleel Haul Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima

3 – Shaykh Abbas Qummi: Baitul Ahzaan fee Massaib-e-Sayyidatun Niswaan

4 – Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Musawi: Al-Kauthar fee Ahwaal-e-Fatima binte Nabi al-Athar

5 – Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Maa Saa az-Zahra (s.a.) (Vols. 5-6)

6 – Sayyid Mahdi Hashmi: Fatima Zahra Dar Kalaam-e-Ahlul Sunnat (Vol. 2)

7 – Adnan Darakhshan: Uboor az Tareeki

8 – Masoodpur Sayyid Aaqaai: Hoor Dar Aatish

9 – Muhammad Dashti: Tahleel Hawaadis Naagawaar Zindagaani Hazrat Zahra (s.a.)

To what extent Ali Believed in Preserving Silence?

It is a point worth considering that silence of Imam Ali (‘a) has a limit as everything else. Beyond that it has gone beyond tolerance and control. In that case, it could rest at sword alone. Caliphs too were aware of this fact.

Historical documents indicate:

“One day in a gathering, Umar asked: If we turn you back to what you are denying now, that is idol worship, what would you do?

The narrator says: All were silent. Umar repeated these words thrice. Then Imam Ali (‘a) got up and said: O Umar! In that case we will ask you to repent and if you repent we will accept.

The Caliph asked: And what if I don’t repent?

Imam said: In that case I would cut off your head.”55

Did Ali Refrain From Arguing About Imamate?

This is another conjecture attached to his practical conduct and his stand with regard to Caliphs’ government. They say that Imam maintained silence regarding his Imamate and Guardianship (Wilayat). Thus they say:

“Ali (‘a) refrained from expressing his view and increasing differences among the people about his Imamate. And it was a prominent part of his attitude to the Caliphs, in their times and in his own period.”!56

It is indeed strange that according to what they claim, His Eminence (‘a) himself did what he prohibited others.

History proves his actions stood in contrast to claims being made about him.

“Sources indicate that Ali did not retire to isolation when his right was usurped from him.

He believed in the holy text, which establishes his right. At every opportunity, he used to complain to his adversaries and opponents about his right that was snatched from him. He used to remind people about his right. Besides, he used to tell his friends and associates not to give any excuse to them. He did this so that things remain clear to judge on truth and facts. So how can he himself not act on what he preached to others?”57

“Some friends of Amirul Momineen (‘a) also resorted to divine text (Nass). Some Emigrants and Helpers in the very initial days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate went to the mosque and each of them standing separately flayed him for usurping the Caliphate, scolded and advised him and mentioned their proofs on the rightfulness of Amirul Momineen (‘a)…that were clear due to the existence of divine texts (Nass).”58

In this chapter, our aim is to make clear some of the efforts of Imam Ali (‘a) to prove his usurped right and revive his Imamate and Guardianship that was being forgotten. And also to criticize the stance of some who believe that Imam Ali (‘a) did not allow his friends to remind people about his Guardianship and Imamate!!

“Imam Ali (‘a) on most cases59 reminded people about Ghadeer.60 On the day when the Prophet had appointed him a leader after him.

He used to recite this couplet among companions of Prophet even in the presence of Caliphs:

The Prophet made me leader and Imam of people on the day of Ghadeer Khumm.

Woe! Woe be on one who will meet God on Judgment Day with his hands polluted with tyranny to me.

When they wanted to take him by force to the mosque to take allegiance for Abu Bakr, he reminded them about Ghadeer and this time they acknowledged it. Just as in the incident of Shura that was instituted by Umar for successorship after him and also during Uthman’s Caliphate he argued on the basis of Ghadeer.

Imam Ali (‘a) says in Nahjul Balagha: They have the will.

Does it mean that the Prophet (S) appointed his Ahlul Bayt as his successors or he willed the people to take care of them or was it advice of the Prophet to take Ali (‘a) as their leader after him? Paying attention to this same sermon we can derive the above meaning. In the preceding sentences Imam (‘a) has shown Ahlul Bayt (‘a) to be superior to all the people and considered leadership to be their right and that only they were fit for leadership of Islamic Ummah.

In the later sentences Imam Ali (‘a) says: Now the right has returned to its rightful owner. It has found its correct location wherefrom it was driven out.

This speech is during his own Caliphate. He considers Islamic government his moral and practical right. He again stresses that the previous Caliphs had usurped his clear and absolute right.

While the government of Islam becomes Imam’s right only when there exists a statement from the Prophet.61

Here we refer to some statements of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) in which he has considered leadership after the Prophet to be his immediate right and considered its usurpation an oppression against himself:

…since the time of Prophet’s death always my established right had been taken away from me.62

From the audience a person got up and said: Son of Abu Talib, you are greedy for Caliphate. Imam in reply said: No, you are greedier than me while with regard to its conditions you are too far from it. I am nearer to it and more deserving. I am demanding any own right. You want to stop me from reaching to my right and want to stand in between.63

…in the same sermon, the Imam complains to God against Quraish. He says: They want to revolt against my own established right.

Likewise, in the Shura committee he told the people: Islamic government is my right. If it is given to me I will take it…

Thus the Imam considered Caliphate his own right. He regards Caliphs usurpers of his absolute right.

He regards Caliphate to be his right without a gap, in such a way that he considered the rejection of his leadership as oppression of Quraish to him and usurpation of his rights…

Imam is not complaining why he was discarded and others took his place. This is not painful to him. His complaint is that his established and acknowledge right was usurped from him. He used to base his claim on Ghadeer.

Imam considered himself and Ahlul Bayt (‘a) as standard-bearers of truth. He also made it clear that the right that Prophet has left to them and in every way their precedence belongs to Ahlul Bayt and separation from them is departure from faith.64”65

On reading these traditions we derive an important point: Amirul Momineen (‘a) sees only himself deserving for Caliphate and considers rulership as a right vested by God to him. It is a distinction particular to him. When others come in between, they are usurpers. No one is chosen for succession to Prophet except Ali. So if others come in they are transgressors on the right which is not theirs. Its origin is divine. Therefore Imam Ali (‘a) regards himself the only deserving candidate by divine choice.

Amirul Momineen (‘a) in some other statements introduced himself as ‘most fit’ and ‘foremost’ for Caliphate. Thus it is mentioned in Nahjul Balagha that: ‘I am more eligible for it than others’66 or he said: ‘You are more liable to pay allegiance to me’.67

The important point to understand in this statement is that the two qualities of ‘most eligible’ and ‘liable’ have two meanings in the dictionary. In the book, Misbah al-Muneer this meaning is indicated: ‘His statement is more truthful than such and such.’ It is used in two ways. One is to particularize a thing with another without their being any commonality in it; like the statement: ‘Zaid is most eligible for his money’. It means that except for Zaid no has the right to his money. And the second is in the meaning of commonality with the other and it is proved in the sense of precedence among others.68

On the basis of this terms of ‘most eligible’ and ‘liable’ are common and their special connotation must be seen in the style of the sentence. When we see the style of the statements of Amirul Momineen (‘a) we find that he is talking of ‘truth’ against ‘falsehood’.

There are so many statements of His Eminence (‘a) of these type in his debates and speeches advocating the supremacy of his divine appointment and the declaration of Ghadeer. In addition to other divine texts (Nass) in his favor and his other steps in reminding about his appointment as successor and Caliph, that we can say that:

“Steps of Imam Ali (‘a) himself, for propagation of ‘divine Imamate’ was the best proof of propagation of Shiaism in the period of Caliphate of His Eminence and later.”69

“It is notable that in the beginning Amirul Momineen (‘a) based his eligibility on divine text (Nass) as this went on to prove the following:

- It passed that when the followers of Imam (‘a) protested on the basis of divine text (Nass); Abu Bakr was not able to reply and his men threatened people on the point of the sword so that no one else could utter these words and this threat was effective. On the other hand, Amirul Momineen (‘a) was also threatened with death many a times…

- The period between Ghadeer and Saqifah was only two months. The divine text (Nass) is reminded when it is not heard by the people or buried in oblivion due to length of time. But the text was still alive in memories of the people because being recent enough people themselves had heard the text from Prophet and witnessed the whole event of Ghadeer.

Therefore the Imam less reminded about the holy text and spoke more of his eligibility. But after some years and death of many eye-witnesses we see that His Eminence again stressed on the holy text.

- The best style of argument is to follow the exigency of debate. That is to debate with something a part of which had already been accepted. Claimants of Caliphate argued with the Ansaar saying that they were more eligible because of their relationship with the Messenger of Allah (S) and they mentioned their excellences. Imam (‘a) also argued in the same style.

- Sometimes mention of ones excellences is necessary…it was because someone asked the Imam: How did they sideline you when you were most eligible?”70

It is interesting that the manner of Imam Ali (‘a) was to remain silent and not to go into religious discourses about Imamate and Wilayat as we have seen:

The attention of Imam towards Shiite Imamate was so much that:

“In a detailed letter, which Imam wrote to Muawiyah, he has explained this issue in detail. The letter contains interesting points with respect to Imam’s share in dissemination of Shiite Wilayat…”71

Anyway, the severity of emphasis done from the side of Amirul Momineen (‘a) regarding his right of Caliphate and Imamate can be gauged from the fact that those who create such conjectures are pushed a step backward and they are compelled to confess that such steps of Imam (‘a) is a struggle to correct the deviated beliefs of the people and the meaning of Imam’s statements is to establish his particular personal right which was based on divine text (Nass) and which had been usurped by particular persons. And in one matter they are absolutely silent that who is the owner of this right and who are the usurpers.

In such a way that in this interpretation of unity-seekers Imam (‘a) has spoken that Islam is having rulership and Caliphate (subject to special conditions and rules). But he never mentioned that the owner of that post was he himself and that Caliphate was a right related to him alone. So how can it be said that he talked of the usurpation of Caliphate and about the usurpers. Thus they falsely claim:

“Did Ali (‘a) while overlooking the demanding of his personal rights for the sake of Muslim unity and protection of Islam awaited to explain the great pillar of Islam which is the surety of Islam and he resorted to silence?”!72

“These statements should not be borne as personal defense and chance historical narration, it would be better to consider them as having a divine message and revelation of a wasted right till it remains in History.”!73

“Ali (‘a) according to the divine responsibility wanted to propagate one of the pillars of Islam which was very good for the future of Islam and Muslims and it was one of the divine rights that had been trespassed and forgotten…and he wanted to accomplish this without creating disunity among the rows of Muslims.”!74

These conjectures are so complicated and confusing that one who reads them wonders whether those who have coined them have forgotten what they had claimed previously?!

But it must be said: These types of expressions were also propagated directly with the previous conjectures and only for concealing numerous historical evidences (all of which show discussions of guardianship and Imamate and plan of usurped right of Amirul Momineen (‘a) from His Eminence (‘a) himself).

Such plans put the readers into such confusion that it is not understood Amirul Momineen (‘a) in fact was reviving which subjects?! A Caliphate absolute and ambiguous that is not understood…

Or a personal right and specified that itself has an application that is introduced and also its usurpers are exposed…

Although it must be understood that showing such unlikely analyses from the biography of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) from the previous beliefs based on the separation of ‘rulership in Islam’ from ‘eligibility of Amirul Momineen (‘a) as a rightful Caliph, immediately after the Messenger of Allah (S)’.

Thus it is said:

“In my view one who says today that there is no politics and rulership, his deviation from Islam is more than one who says for example that Ali was not the immediate Caliph due to the fact that this issue in relation to that one is branch issue and they have separated the principles of religion from politics which is a very dangerous thing and his deviation is also more; that is it can be said that they have denied a necessary matter, but with regard to the deniers of immediate Caliphate Ali (‘a) it cannot be said that they have denied a necessary matter of Islam…”!75

It is interesting that in the way of attributing separation between the position of Caliphate and Imamate and also in concealing all the debates of Amirul Momineen (‘a) they still claim:

“Imam instead of stressing on the Caliphate of Ahlul Bayt, he has emphasized on their knowledge, intelligence and their scientific and spiritual centrality.”!76

It is in the circumstances that the makers of these statements themselves have exhibited a contradiction in speech when they claimed that:

“Imam severely prohibited the people excess regarding himself which may in contradiction to what perception the general public holds about him.”!77

Not only this is contradicting their own statements, it is also against their publicized claim regarding the attitude of His Eminence (‘a); because firstly:

Statements of His Eminence (‘a) regarding the moral positions of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) are opposed to what the general public thinks! Because they have themselves confessed that after the Prophet (S),

“The majority chose the method of selection and the Imam and his supporters stressed on divine text (Nass).”!78

On the basis of this confession most of the people had not accepted the special status of Imam (‘a) and in fact it must be said that they even denied and ignored his recognized position; on the basis of explanation of essay writers, stressing on knowledge and intellect and scientific and spiritual centrality of the Imam (‘a) in such conditions would be accepting of a position and status opposed to public perception about the His Eminence (‘a)!

Secondly it must be noted that:

“Actions of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reviving the knowledge centrality of Ahlul Bayt (‘a)79 in emphatic way should be considered to be a right contained in his Caliphate and not viewed as aimed to dispense with public perception about Alawi Caliphate.

These steps, themselves are proofs that the eligibility for Caliphate was restricted to His Eminence (‘a);

So that it may become clear to all that:

“Their sciences and divine knowledge were from a divine source and all the other people are not fit to be compared with them. Therefore others must follow Ahlul Bayt.

His Eminence, Ali (‘a) has introduced Ahlul Bayt as follows:

They are the trustees of His secrets, shelter for His affairs, source of knowledge about Him, centre of His wisdom, valleys for His books and mountains of His religion.

With them Allah straightened the bend of religion’s back and removed the trembling of its limbs.

None in the Islamic community can be taken at par with the Progeny of the Prophet. One who was under their obligation cannot be matched with them.

They are the foundation of religion and pillar of Belief. The forward runner has to turn back to them while the follower has to overtake them.

They possess the chief characteristics for vicegerency. In their favor exists the will and succession (of the Prophet).

When the Imam (‘a) got the seat of Caliphate he said:

This is the time when right has returned to its owner and diverted to its centre of return.”80

Are Shias obliged to avoid discussion on Caliphate…?

One of the conjectures indirectly related to the conjecture of silence is that Shias urged silence. They must restrain to debate and discuss the subject of Caliphate and Imamate of Ali. They are expected to not reveal usurpation of Caliphate by preceding Caliphs. Their crimes have sought cover under a false obligation of their being secrets of progeny of Muhammad.

As we pointed out in the first volume of this book, these conjectures are in fact new statements of invitation to silence (and always overlooking differences of knowledge between two schools). Answers too in this respect are dealt with. In short, it is contradiction between secrets of knowledge and political secrets of Ahlul Bayt (‘a).

What we want to explain here is a new point towards answering this conjecture.

A thing, reality of which is hidden from people, is called a secret. Accuracy or keen attention in understanding a subject results in giving it entity of secrecy. Or foreign hands could have been at work that resulted in pushing it into secrecy.

In any case, a reality which can be exposed is hidden from public knowledge. When it is hidden with all proofs it becomes a secret.

In these circumstances there is no need if subjects of all proofs (personal, external or exigency) remain concealed from the people, it is always necessary to maintain its link with the subject matter and it must never be separated from it.

In other words, the responsibility of maintaining this link is a subject that is not only applicable to a secret. Because anything hidden from people and having characteristic of a secret is not always under necessity of remaining behind a curtain.

In fact, between to be concealed or to continue to remain concealed is an issue that does not have a requirement. Except that there be a necessity for it.

On the basis of this if something is secret it does not imply that it is prohibited, therefore it is not that a secret should always continue to be a secret.

There are many things which should be known to all, but the obstacle…! The tyrant governments or tyrants that hold power first spread dread and fear among people to hold them from reaching to facts. These very facts change to secrets with passage of time.

It is obvious that not only concealing of these facts is not necessary, rather if they could be useful in securing prosperity in the next world, or its knowledge is a necessity for happiness in that world to keep them secret would be fatal to us. Especially if there is a direct relation between these facts and matters of faith or these facts help us to separate guidance from misguidance. Therefore it is prohibited.

Now we return to matters called secrets of progeny of Muhammad. This term is actually used for traditions in book of Sulaym Ibn Qays Hilali and connected to incidents that occurred in the early stages of Islam and usurpation of Caliphate and seizing of rulership after the Prophet.

Now the question is: why these facts are called secrets?

Did these incidents automatically became secrets or they were made into secrets? Was there a special aim in keeping them secret?

In reply we say:

Those events occurred or better to say were committed in broad daylight – seen by all, at the surface of society. Now such an open thing is changed into a secret to protect usurpation of usurpers and to protect their government. After every revolution, endeavors are made to hide the tyranny that led to its success and continuity. It is treated as a crime for the coming generations.

That this type of information is called secret is in itself proof that it is told in tyrannical conditions and had remained far from knowledge of common people due to pressing circumstances that dominated the society. Besides, the narration of events had not gone from a generation to next. So now after a lapse of so many years it would be impossible to know those facts.

So the contents of the book of Sulaym called secrets are facts in their reality and originality.81 The tyrants that grasped Caliphate laid hands upon these facts making them confidential so that they could reach to anyone’s knowledge. The reader of the book of Sulaym comes across information about Caliphs, their attitudes and their life by its root. And it contains information that is not available anywhere else.

Such type of confidentiality cannot be a correct interpretation of the word ‘secrets’. Because secondly today the past tyranny is no more.

Of course there are certain points in Sulaym’s Book, which should not be told openly because they relate to particular time and place? It will be detrimental to make them public. The matter is such that it needs special precaution and care. But not all matters in the book are such.

Therefore the word of ‘secrets’ should not be interpreted to keep all the matters of the book of Sulaym confidential.

Suffocating circumstances some centuries ago ruled society and therein were a few particular persons instrumental in this. Those restrictions were effective at that time but how it can now be a ruling for this present generation?

This question must be asked from those who claim:

“This writer on the basis of all he has learnt of the biographies of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) has narrated most narrations that caused mischief and unrest and gives advantage to the enemies. They caused scuffles between Shia and Sunni and Muslim bloodshed entailed. Things took the worst turn. Dissimulation became necessary. The Impeccable Imams had to prohibit revealing the secrets of Muhammad’s House.”82

It is thus said that only because only calling some historical narrations as secrets does not mean that Imams have prohibited them. It must be seen what the obligation of a Shia is? To narrate events or not, should be decided by independent arguments. Can the word, secrets be applied or not? The answer must be found in Islamic rulings.

Although some correct applications of it indicate the same conjecture. However, careful attention must be paid because if secrets do not have any detrimental consequences, it is not necessary to keep them unrevealed.

In jurisprudence also revealing secrets has a bearing on condition of time and place. Some conditions could be fixed and unchangeable. Some may alter with change of time and place. Therefore decision depends upon their nature.

Propagator of this conjecture regards every secret confidential. To him detrimental consequences are enough to prove a secret as confidential. Within these milestones, he is groping his way between a secret and confidential matter. It is only to escape from narration of events which are shameful due to their criminal characteristics.

Even if we accept some information in early stages of Islam concerning events of Caliphate and division of the nation thereat are secrets. Still there remains a question if these events in their width and breadth found in books of Sunni sect or found in documents, are they still secrets or confidential?

There are libraries where historical books are collected, through them bitter events that occurred in the early period of Islam can easily be traced, hence these events can no more be secrets.

In the same way in the present age, analysis of events had become a science. Scholars and historians trace the track of past nations. How can Muslim historians be prohibited and restricted from reaching to root of the causes?

If it is claimed that it is an insult to the Prophet’s House where divine revelation descended, then what to say about the train of events that ensued, such as setting fire to the door of the House, miscarriage of Mohsin, threat of killing to Ali and a series of events? Should these events not be told or recorded in history?

In reply we say: None of these events can be considered as secrets as all are mentioned in Sunni books.

We invite our readers to the book, Attack on Fatima’s house by Abdul Zahra Mahdi. He has mentioned the event in detail with documentary proofs. The scholar has presented the events following Saqifah for public scrutiny and judgment.

Again, oriental scholars like Wilfred Madelung have written with courage recorded every bit of events of that early period of Islam and describes in detail the plot of Helpers and Emigrants. (Companions of the accursed scroll). All this is supported by documentary proofs and evidences.

“Wilfred Madelung, German orientialist, in his book,83 first puts forward the theory of Lammens84 i.e. the triumvirate of power (Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah Jarrah). Then he explains according to the analysis of Caetani85 that in this triangle, the inspiring element was Umar. According to Madelung, Abu Bakr had aspired power and undoubtedly, prior to the Prophet’s demise he had decided to be his caliph…Therefore he was determined to destroy his opponents who were Ahlul Bayt of Prophet and was waiting for an opportunity.

Further, Madelung stresses on existence of a pre-planned and well-decided design of Abu Bakr for obtaining Caliphate. However he thinks it was fortuitous, a matter of chance that the plot took shape in Saqifah. Besides, he considers the help of a few from the people of Quraish was very much efficacious which led to public allegiance…”86

The Second caliph has admitted most confidential matters quoted in Sulaym’s Book:

“During journey to Syria, when Umar reached the district of Shura he was informed of an epidemic in Damascus. Umar said: If I die and Abu Ubaidah were left alive, I would have appointed him to Caliphate. If he (Abu Ubaidah) is dead I will make Maaz bin Jabal87 a caliph.

If we keep this statement in line with episode of Saqifah it appears too congruous with its very spirit. Because the most important persons who supported candidacy of Abu Bakr were themselves: Umar, Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, Salim and Maaz bin Jabal.”88

“Not only Maaz he also preferred Salim for leadership and he said: If Salim89 were alive, I would have appointed him.”90

On the basis of this except for the issues specified by Ja’fari jurisprudence every topic that in the view of unity-seekers is to be kept secret must be propagated if those things are mentioned in Sunni sources or they can be traced in Sunni books. Unity-seekers cannot prohibit making them public.

All these matters, that is about Caliphs, their identities, intentions etc. that exist only in Shia books and records are such that their refutation is nowhere to be seen in Sunni books and according to the authority of these books they are not disproved.

Now we should see as to where dissimulation stands in our days:

In every sense, silence of Ali in having intellectual discussions based on proofs was not to create differences nor did it carry any motive to foment disunity. Still they say:

“Imam Sadiq recommends unity. He advises dissimulation against tyrants in order to avoid divisions. It is especially for Shia and Sunni brothers that they should say that Muslims must have piety, they must practice dissimulation and refrain from creating any type of difference.”!91

Anyway, analysis of events of early Islamic days is an urgent need for Islamic society and our present young generation. It is also a valid foundation of creating unity.

Are Shias Obliged Not To Debate On Imamate?

A you have seen, unity-seekers have always made efforts so that events may be forgotten. They prefer that all records of deeds of usurper Caliphs should be forgotten. Recently they have also invited to maintain silence under the excuse of maintaining secrets and it also includes discussions related to Imamate and Wilayat (Guardianship) of Ahlul Bayt (‘a). In short, their endeavors are far reaching beyond past conjectures. Their aim is to distort face of Imamiyah school and extinguish lamp of Shiaism by perverting and deviating facts and fundamentals of Alawi Guardianship i.e. Wilayat. They even say:

“I do not deny that there were secrets in Ali’s heart. He did not reveal them because he did not see fit. We too should not reveal them in emulating our Chief, Ali. He even did not tell the nearest ones. We too must do the same.”!92

To analyze this we must first see what those secrets were, which Imam Ali (‘a) did not see fit to be revealed.

A glance at the article: Imam Ali (‘a) and Unity,93 shows that these secrets, which according to this claim must not be revealed, ‘The moral stations of the Imams; that is the splendor of their Wilayat, Imamate and guidance’. Thus they say:

“To acknowledge moral stations of Imams needs time. One should cross stages of learning and knowledge to know their position. Ali, prior and after Caliphate, used to speak regarding it. But he did not see among people required maturity and preparedness to reveal the secret of Guardianship. Later he settled in Kufa. His friends and companions too gathered there around him. Then he spoke some matters to them. Such matters that he told were most probably for Shias. Earlier to this, no one knew the facts except Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Ammar. Before Caliphate, a few persons knew the secrets. They were under mandate to keep them confidential.”!94

This claim is being made at the time when all this can be found with evidences in Sunni books. The superiority of morals, exalted tributes and divinely bestowed qualities of Imam Ali (‘a) glare from pages of Sunni books. What is so open now, is called a secret.

In the same way divine text (Nass) that supports the Wilayat (Guardianship) and Imamate of Ali can also be found in historical sources because history of the Message of Prophet cannot be separated from history of propagation of his teachings.

Allamah Abdul Husayn Amini; his literacy endeavors in compiling the book of Al-Ghadeer are too worthy and valuable and very much useful. Likewise, the valuable research of Indian scholar, Hamid Husayn, in his book Abaqaat al-Anwaar is too beneficial to a reader. Another scholar in this field, Qadi Nurullah Shushtari has also exerted efforts in compiling realities in his book Ihqaaq al-Haqq. Later on Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin compiled a book titled Al-Murajaat. The documentary evidences and facts collected and compiled in these books clearly establish rights and moral stations of Ali and the Imams. That which makes these books more trustworthy is that all sources are from opponents of Shia School. Books of those who do not see eye to eye with Shia School are full of material, which stands a ground to defend Shia belief. As such this material is and never was confidential.

If Imam Ali (‘a) did not reveal the matter, it was because he was not under a mandate to do so. Taking into consideration twenty-three years of Prophet’s labor from the day of announcement of his Mission to Ghadeer, Ali was mandated to preserve the message. Muslim society had attained maturity to the extent of sufficiency.

Therefore, the Imam only exhausted the argument on the deniers and warned the negligent ones and he had no other purpose. Because secondly, in this matter, the Islamic Ummah is one that has the responsibility to refer to the Imam and Divine Proof (Hujjat).

There is thus no reason to argue its being confidential. This itself is enough proof of existence of pressure, which had crushed liberties in society. Imam Ali (‘a) could have done more had he been free. He did not tell because he could not. That Caliphs ruled with tyranny can well be understood by the very behavior of Imam Ali (‘a).

The Prophet had conveyed to the nation all aspects of guidance and attributes of Ali. What Ali should and could have said when the Prophet had told everything?

If the moral position of Ali be regarded as a secret, does it not crawl into oblivion? Will it not put the Message of Prophet to question?

There remains nothing unknown to Muslim society, which Shia cannot find in Sunni books.

Another Point

Inspite of clear contradictions in the above-mentioned claim they make another:

“Imam instead of stressing on the Caliphate of Ahlul Bayt, has emphasized on their knowledge, intelligence and their scientific and spiritual centrality.”!95

And the emphasis of this view of unity-seekers to continue this attitude. Thus it is said:

“Difference between the issue of Caliphate and Imamate is a strong pillar of nearness.”96

The question is:

What is the motive of these contradictory statements?

The reply can be:

According to their thinking, the moral stations of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) are such that they can make their audiences conclude that the personal right of Imam Ali (‘a) was usurped and pillaged by three Caliphs. The Imam was deprived of right of Caliphate that God had bestowed on him. Caliphate was his heritage.

In the view of these people, whenever there was discussion of the moral stations of Ahlul Bayt (‘a), invariably there was also mention of the usurpation of personal rights of Amirul Momineen (‘a) through the Caliphs, secondly these issues should be considered as the hidden secrets?!

Therefore they treat it a secret in order not to talk about it. The word, secret is a good excuse and a covering on crimes of Caliphs. Their Caliphate loses its validity and credibility if facts were broached that it was Ali’s right. There is no way to conceal except to maintain silence. Secrets are not to be revealed. Hence such things should be ignored and gradually they would disappear from the root.

“These statements should not be considered as defense of personal rights…”97

They say:

“As for issues related to Caliphate there is much material in history and tradition on behalf of Ali in addition to narrations of Ali. This has not been evaluated from literary standard or according to Imam’s standard or motive. If evaluated they will not correspond with the attitude of Ali or Caliphs.

If we keep this as a base to judge the authenticity of these statements we will see, mostly they are from the book of Sulaym bin Qays. Hence they do not carry any authenticity”!98

Now it should be asked: Let us see how the Imam’s conduct towards Caliphs was. And from where this should commence?

To make a correct judgment about any historical personality is there any other way except that the facts must be drawn from history or a reliable source?

Please pay attention: For a personality like Imam Ali (‘a), regarding his relations with Caliphate and Caliphs we must refer to narrations and information recorded in books of History.99

Therefore, it will not be logical that without referring to historical sources we only base our analysis on personal whims as far as the Imam’s attitude is concerned. And then make it the base and standard of correctness or incorrectness of historical evidences and narrations regarding the attitudes of His Eminence (‘a) towards the Caliphs.

In other words, exposing the biographical details of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with regard to his relationship with Caliphate or Caliphs is possible from analysis of captioned issues in history and traditions and in consequence of referring to these narration reports and sayings. Now how can these fruits and results be falsified on the basis of a standard drawn from some other sources?

This standard is invalid and its application is not aimed except to put a lid on the misdeeds of the usurpers of the rights of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and abuses against the Caliphs. Because every investigation has demonstrated that understanding the attitude of Ali by referring to History and narration reports related to their behavior has referred to these sources, so talking about the behavior of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in every matter will be meaningless.

From where have they arrived at the claim that Imam (‘a) refrained from emphasis on the usurpation of his rights at the hands of Caliphs that they should make it a reliable standard and scientific aspect to question the information contained in Shia History and hadith books?!

There is no other aim in this except to make interpretations based on ones personal whims to support their own claims and to refute what is in opposition to their views.

In fact in such a manner one is not in pursuit of finding the reality; one only endeavors to present that which one has accepted to be reality and which one has preferred through some selected evidences and rejection of all other sources.

- 1. Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1, Discourse 1 and 2cc.

- 2. Documents and sources of siege on the house of Fatima (s.a.).

- 3. Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1, Discourse 4.

- 4. In the discussions after this writing, we shall criticize and investigate these objections.

- 5. In addition to criticism of the conjecture “Absence of demanding the right of Caliphate” related to the conjectures of first type we will also refute the supposition of “Lack of explanation of the position of Imamate and Wilayat by Amirul Momineen (‘a)”.

- 6. Muhammad Ali Tashkhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 34.

- 7. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 42.

- 8. For deeper understanding of the stance of Abu Sufyan and his aims in this regard refer to the book, Tahleel Neem Qarn Siayasathai Tableeghi Amawiyaan dar Shaam, Pgs. 48-50, by Faheema Farhamandpoor; or the last part of the article: ‘Realism in the biography of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and the attitude of enemies’ by Abdur Reza Khalili printed in Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue no. 4, Azar 1381.

- 9. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 43.

- 10. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 83.

- 11. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 44.

- 12. Ibid. Pg. 45.

- 13. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 79-80.

- 14. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 18.

- 15. Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pg. 89.

- 16. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 446.

- 17. Hashmatullah Qambari Hamadani: Asraar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada (Secrets and relics of Saqifah Bani Saada), Pg. 85.

- 18. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pgs. 43-44.

- 19. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 458; quoted from: Ihtijaaj Tabarsi: Vol. 1, Pgs. 186-199.

- 20. Quoted from: Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays, Vol. 2, Pg. 583.

- 21. Quoted from: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 865.

- 22. Quoted from: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 589.

- 23. Quoted from: Ihtijaaj Tabarsi: Vol. 1, Pgs. 185.

- 24. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 456.

- 25. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Seeri Dar Seerah Aimmah-e-Athaar (A Glance at the Life of Purified Imams), Pg. 22.

- 26. Ibid. Pg. 20.

- 27. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 191.

- 28. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21.

- 29. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21.

- 30. Ezzatudin Abu Hamid Motazalli (Ibn Abi Hadeed) writes: One day the Prophet hit on the shoulder of Ali and cried and said: “I weep for the hatred that is in the hearts of the nation. They do not make it open to you as long as I am alive”. Ibn Askar writes: Ali asked as to what he should do then. The Prophet told him to be patient. Ali asked: What would happen if I couldn’t do that? The Prophet said: You will face hardships. (Yusuf Gholami After Sunset, Pg. 160 narrated from Nahjul Balagha) Vol. 4, Pg. 107; History of City of Damascus Vol. 2, Pg. 325.

- 31. This incident happened in the third week of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

- 32. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 449.

- 33. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pgs. 49-50.

- 34. Yusuf Gholami: Bohraan-e-Jansheeni-e-Payambar (Crisis of Succession to the Prophet), Pgs. 34-35.

- 35. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 191-192.

- 36. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 49.

- 37. Yusuf Gholami: Bohraan-e-Jansheeni-e-Payambar (Crisis of Succession to the Prophet), Pg. 65.

- 38. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 160.

- 39. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 194-195.

- 40. Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1.

- 41. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pgs. 44-45.

- 42. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 11.

- 43. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pgs. 46-47.

- 44. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 82.

- 45. Ibid. Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 82.

- 46. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 37.

- 47. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 80.

- 48. Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 18.

- 49. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 127.

- 50. Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 29; quoted from Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 5, Pg. 76.

- 51. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 44.

- 52. Ali (‘a) and Umar.

- 53. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 41.

- 54. Surah Taubah 9:12.

- 55. Najmuddin Al-Askari: Ali wal Khulafa, Pg. 120; quoted from Manaqib Khwarizmi, Pg.(196), 59.

- 56. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21 This article is also quoted with many additional parts in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali 1st Edition 1381, Vol. 2.

- 57. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 82.

- 58. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 457

- 59. Refer: Muhammad Baqir Ansari: Chaharda Qarn Ba Ghadeer (Fourteen centuries with Ghadeer) (Itmaam-e-Hujjatha Bahashai Ilmi Munaziraat…), Pgs. 39-61.

- 60. In the book Chaharda Qarn Ba Ghadeer (Fourteen centuries with Ghadeer) 31 proofs of Ghadeer Tradition are mentioned.

- 61. The Right of the Imam to Caliphate was his self-right that had originated from divine text (Nass). It was not a right by qualification. So to take back the right is to revive divine text (Nass). So in the society it denotes his position that comes next to the Prophet.

- 62. Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 6.

- 63. Ibid. Sermon 172.

- 64. Ibid. Sermon 100.

- 65. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 83-87.

- 66. Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 74.

- 67. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Pg. 206.

- 68. Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 5, Pg. 162; quoted from: Maqri Fiyumi: Al-Misbah al-Muneer, Pg. 198.

- 69. Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 134.

- 70. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pgs. 459-460.

- 71. Rasool Ja'faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 135; quoted from: Al-Ghaaraat, Vol. 2, Pgs. 195-204.

- 72. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pgs. 20-21.

- 73. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21.

- 74. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 23.

- 75. Ibid. Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 15.

- 76. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 22.

- 77. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 13.

- 78. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 10.

- 79. When people had doubts about Sunnah of Prophet, instead of Ali (‘a) they used to go to Ayesha and accept whatever she said whether it was right or wrong. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 281.

- 80. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali (‘a) and the Rulers), Pgs. 87-88; quoting from Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 2.

- 81. Referring to dictionaries like Taj al-Uroos and Qamoos it would be known that ‘Sirr’ is not only ‘that which he hides’ it also conveys things like ‘purity of all things’ ‘fear of all things’ etc.

- 82. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Iss.ue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 83. Succession of His Eminence, Muhammad.

- 84. Belgian orientalist.

- 85. Italian orientalist.

- 86. Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah, Pgs. 11-13, Preface by Dr. Mahdi Dashti.

- 87. He was from the Ansaar – emigrants.

- 88. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 58; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 227.

- 89. He was a Persian.

- 90. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 59; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 227.
The point to be noted is that the Caliph is talking of conditions of successorship of Maaz and Salim but before that in Saqifah he had argued on the basis of Caliphate for Quraish and overpowered the Ansaar.

- 91. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Payaam-e-Taqreeb, (Message of Unity) Pg. 80.

- 92. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 24.

- 93. Ibid. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pgs. 2-31.

- 94. Ibid. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pgs. 22-23.

- 95. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 22.

- 96. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 256.

- 97. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 21.

- 98. Ibid. Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 23.

- 99. Although that which confirms the correctness of these traditions is the special tenor of these narrations mentioned in books related to this subject but it shall be applicable to these narrations only.

Discourse 2: Criticism And Scrutiny Of Analyses Propagated About Consultation Of Caliphs With Ali

What Doubts Are Propagated In This Regard?

One of the wrong analyses propagated by some extremist unity-seekers is that in spite of differences between Ali and Caliphs, the Caliphs consulted Ali whenever necessary.

They thus say:

“He1 sought answers to his difficulties in Ali’s company. Ali explained to him issues not clear to him. And he executed Ali’s judicial decrees. Ali too like a kind lover used to guide his beloved. He did not keep anything short from him. We shall deal with Ali’s practical conduct with Umar. This will show good relations between these two great historical persons.”!2

Does Consultation Alone Suffices To Prove Good Relations?

Now our aim is to answer this question: to offer consultation or to give opinion on various issues wherein ignorance of Caliphs pushed and enmeshed them which was about to leave bad effects on Islamic legislation and spoil fundamentals, is it enough to show existence of a lover and a beloved type of relations? In later chapters we shall dwell upon relations between Ali and Caliphs on the basis of historical evidences.

While it is that:

“It must be acknowledged that had not the Imam gone to help the Caliphs, Muslims would have been involved in a great chaos. It was likely that Muslims could have even apostised. Or when they did not receive an answer, Islam itself would have fallen into suspicion and it was likely they would have denounced Islam as a false religion.”3

Reply to this question needs a thorough research regarding consultation of Caliphs with Amirul Momineen (‘a) and to derive conclusions from it. But first only by way of logical refutation we want to mention that by studying history we can also find cases in which Muawiyah sought Ali’s opinion.

The table given below show instances of Muawiyah referring to Hazrat Ali (‘a), taken from the valuable book of Ali and the Caliphs by contemporary research scholar, Shaykh Najmuddin Al-Askari.

(Fifth type) Some instances of Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan referring to Amirul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) 349

Topic

No

Instances of Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan referring to Amirul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) narrated by Sunni scholars 351

Legal

1

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict of digging graves 352

Legal

2

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict of one who found a man … and killed him 352

Legal

3

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict of two men having dispute about the cloth 354

Legal

4

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict of who marries a girl and later marries her to another 354

Scientific query – religious

5

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply to question of Ibnal Asfar 355

Scientific query – religious

6

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply to question of the Roman King 357

Scientific query – religious

7

Another referral to him in reply to question of the Roman King 358

On investigation it does not remain concealed that relationship of Muawiyah with Amirul Momineen (‘a) was in no sense cordial and these referrals and consultations in no way prove good relations between them. Except that we want to be careful in passing off as good straining of relations of the Imam (‘a) with Muawiyah and for the aspect of protecting Muslim unity suffice to say:

“But he took Muawiyah to task because his act had gone beyond the limits of difference in opinion…”!4

Analysis Of Consultation Of Caliphs With Amirul Momineen (‘a) On The Basis Of Statistical Scrutiny

On the basis of this only consultation does not describe the motives of the two sides and for obtaining correct analysis from consultation of Caliphs with Amirul Momineen (‘a) it is necessary to examine each instance of these consultations case by case basis. We should classify each instance according to the subject of inquiry and mode of referral etc. and then analyse on the basis of statistics.

Therefore we have made a systematic table of all instances of referrals in the book, Min Noor-e-Ali, Part Two, Ali wa Khulafa,5 written by Shaykh Najmuddin Al-Askari, and classified by subject of inquiry and mode of consultation.

Chart Of Consultations Of Three Caliphs With Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Mode of Referral

Topic

No

(Second Type) some instances of Abu Bakr consulting Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

1

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of the Jew 75

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

2

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Jathileeq 76

First Companions’ consulted then Imam (‘a) mentioned his view

Laws of Shariah

3

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict one who marries like… 77

First Companions’ consulted then Imam (‘a) view is asked

Administrative affairs

4

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) during battle of Rome 78

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

5

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in verdict of one who consumed liquor and claims he did so not knowing its illegality 78

Mode of referral not mentioned. Apparently Imam (‘a) was present and he gave the reply

Laws of Shariah

6

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man who marries.. 81

First Companions’ consulted then Imam (‘a) mentioned his view

Scientific inquiry – Religious

7

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about building of Masjid at the sea shore… 82

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

8

Referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the reply questions of Christians 83

News reached Imam (‘a) and he interfered

Scientific inquiry – Religious

9

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of messenger of Roman king 85

The questioner himself asked the Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

10

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Raas al-Jaloot 86

News reached Imam (‘a) and he replied

Scientific inquiry – Religious

11

Question of Abu Bakr regarding meaning of Quranic word: Abaa 88

News reached Imam (‘a) and he replied

Scientific inquiry – Religious

12

Question of Abu Bakr regarding meaning of Kalaala 93

The questioner addressed the Imam (‘a) directly

Scientific inquiry – Religious

13

Question of Abu Bakr regarding place of Allah

Mode of referral not mentioned. Apparently Imam (‘a) was present and he gave the reply

Laws of Shariah

14

Ref. Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the verdict of one who says to a man… 97

Mode of Referral

Topic

No

(Third Type) some instances of Umar bin Khattab consulting Amirul Momineen (‘a)
.

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

1

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about a man who is shrouded in cloth spun with gold threads 101

In the beginning Imam (‘a) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him

Laws of Shariah

2

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about marrying the mother of the young man… 102

In the beginning Imam (‘a) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him

Laws of Shariah

3

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about wife of Uqbah’s slave … 102

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) was asked about his view

Monetary affairs

4

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about Baitul Maal … 103

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) was asked about his view

Monetary affairs

5

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the amount that can be taken from Baitul Maal 106

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Monetary affairs

6

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about sale of Kaaba cloth… 107

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Laws of Shariah

7

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about punishment of drinking wine 109

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Laws of Shariah

8

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about one who drinks wine under a pretext 110

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) was asked about his view

Laws of Shariah

9

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the group of people who imbibed wine in Syria 113

News reached Imam (‘a) and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

10

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about Khamr… 115

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Laws of Shariah

11

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the Imam who sees a man and his wife on… 119

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Laws of Shariah

12

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about one who does not turn the people to ignorance 120

At the request of both sides the Imam was referred to

Laws of Shariah

13

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about two men… 121

First the Companions were asked and then Imam (‘a) was asked about his view

Laws of Shariah

14

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about marrying slaves 123

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

15

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about divorce 124

Referred both parties to the Imam directly

Laws of Shariah

16

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about two men disputing 127

Referred both parties to the Imam directly

Laws of Shariah

17

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the Bedouin who sold his camel 128

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

18

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about one who killed the camel of someone… 129

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

19

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about necessity of Ghusl for… 130

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Scientific inquiry – Religious

20

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about Hajar Aswad 133

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

21

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the in Ihram eating… 139

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

22

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about killed in the Kaaba… 141

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

23

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about fixing of the time of Mischief 146

By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Scientific inquiry – Religious

24

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about a man from the companions whi said that he liked mischief 147

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Administrative affairs

25

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in victory of Baitul Maqdas 155

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) was asked about his view

Laws of Shariah

26

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the incident of Maan Ibn Zaida 159

In the beginning Imam (‘a) mentioned the issue and then Umar who was present there posed the question to him

Laws of Shariah

27

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man whom Amirul Momineen (‘a) told to abstain from his wife 161

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

28

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) to fulfill the request of slave of a Jew 161

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

29

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Caesar of Rome 168

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Scientific inquiry – Religious

30

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply to the questions of Roman King 175

News reached Imam (‘a) and he gave the reply

Scientific inquiry – Religious

31

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply to Rabbis 179

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

32

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Kaab al-Ahbaar 189

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

33

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Asqaf Najran 197

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

34

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about in reply to Jews… 201

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

35

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of some Jew people 203

Chance presence of the Imam (‘a) and reply of His Eminence (‘a) in the matter

Scientific inquiry – Religious

36

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of Kaab al-Ashraaf and Malik bin Saifi 205

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

37

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply of 40 women… 206

News reached Imam (‘a) and he gave the reply

Laws of Shariah

38

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the verdict of the woman who… 211

From the narration it seems that the Imam was not referred to directly

Laws of Shariah

39

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman who delivers in six months 214

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) mentioned his view

Laws of Shariah

40

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman.. while she was forced 221

By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Laws of Shariah

41

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman…insane 224

By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Laws of Shariah

42

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the who is pregnant and confesses… 230

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

43

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about not punishing Abu Bakra 235

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

44

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the woman who gave birth to… 240

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

45

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the free woman and a slave woman disputing about a male child 242

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

46

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the pregnant woman who had a miscarriage in fear of Umar 247

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

47

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the one… and he was fasting 250

Referred both parties to the Imam directly

Laws of Shariah

48

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man who divorces his wife without uttering the word of ‘divorce’ 251

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

49

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about selling the daughters of kings 261

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

50

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about taking Jizyah 262

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

51

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about Meeqaat… 264

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

52

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the meaning of Alhamdulillaah 265

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

53

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the incident of Qataf 265

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

54

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about distribution of Kufa lands 267

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) mentioned his view

Scientific inquiry – Religious

54

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about fixing the beginning of Hijra calendar 268

First the Companions were consulted and then Imam (‘a) expressed his view

Administrative affairs

56

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about mounted attack 270

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

57

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about inheritance of grandfather 275

By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Laws of Shariah

58

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the woman who denied her son 277

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

59

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the woman who delivered a red-skinned child while she was herself black 282

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Scientific inquiry – Religious

60

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the woman accused by the Ansaari 283

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

61

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the thief whose one hand and leg has been cut off 286

In two narrations the referral was indirect

Laws of Shariah

62

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man who hit the killer of his brother till he thought that he was dead; so he fled. But he came back to kill him again 287

By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Laws of Shariah

63

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman who marries an old man and that man dies 289

Referred directly to the Imam

Laws of Shariah

64

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about th woman who resembles the mother of man 291

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

65

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man… 291

Referred directly to the Imam

Laws of Shariah

66

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the orphan… 292

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

67

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about two men disputing about eight dirhams 295

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

68

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man in ladies clothes 299

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

69

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about two women disputing about a male child 307

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

70

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the youth… 307

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

71

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man who told his wife… 312

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

72

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about five arrested for… 313

First the Companions were questioned and then Imam (‘a) was asked

Laws of Shariah

73

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the newborn child… 314

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

74

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the amount of blood money of one who attacks another cutting off a part of his tongue 320

In two narrations the referral was indirect

Laws of Shariah

75

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man who planned to kill the killer of his brother a second time 320

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

76

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the slave who killed his mistress and master 323

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

77

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man who divorced his wife when he was a non-Muslim and again when he became a Muslim 324

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

78

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man… 325

Referring the questioner directly to Imam (‘a)
By chance Imam (‘a) was present and he interfered in the matter

Scientific inquiry – Religious
Laws of Shariah

80

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in reply to women… 327

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

81

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman… 328

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

82

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about a woman whose husband is missing 328

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

83

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict whether the Magians are Ahlul Kitab or disbelievers 328

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Scientific inquiry – Religious

84

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the three things Umar forgot to ask the Prophet (S) 329

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Scientific inquiry – Religious

85

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about fixing a place for Allah about which he was asked 333

Mode of Referral

Topic

No

(Fourth Type) some instances of Uthman consulting Amirul Momineen (‘a) 335

Imam (‘a) received the news and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

1

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman who delivers a child in six months 337

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

2

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the old man who married… 338

Referred both parties to the Imam directly

Laws of Shariah

3

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about the man who… 339

Mode of referring is varied in narrations

Laws of Shariah

4

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the woman of Ansaar whose husband died 340

Imam (‘a) received the news and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

5

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the hunter… 342

Imam (‘a) was present there and he interfered

Laws of Shariah

6

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for verdict about the man… 344

Directly asked Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

7

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about correspondence… 344

Both parties told to refer to the Imam (‘a)

Laws of Shariah

8

Ref. to Amirul Momineen (‘a) about a slave who… 345

What does Scrutiny of Statistics show?

A) Items Of Abu Bakr’s Consultation With Imam Ali (‘a)

The following are the results of statistical analysis of First Caliph’s consultations with Amirul Momineen (‘a):

In all there were 14 instances when Abu Bakr referred to Ali. Its detailed order is: 9 items concern knowledge and religion, 4 items regarding justice, legislature, criminal sentences and jurisprudence. One item only on military side. In finance there is no item registered in history.

Point worth noting in this is that the mode of contacting the Imam: Four times Abu Bakr contacted directly without any formality. Three of them were for religious matters and learning and one for religious decrees.

Only in one instance, he consulted his companions and then finally sought Ali’s view and opinion. The question was a military matter. In other words in nine remaining instances Imam’s presence in the scene or in affairs is completely overlooked. And in fact the Caliph never referred to the Imam. Rather the Imam himself, in spite of this negligence in two instances after the Caliph’s consultation with the companions expressed his view. There are two incidents when Imam himself interfered, since he was present there. There are other three instances when the Imam received the news he took steps; and lastly in two other cases the questioner referred to the Imam.

So we leave judgment to the reader. In spite of these open matters they still say:

“And in this way, Abu Bakr, the First Caliph, has benefited from Imam Ali (‘a) in difficult issues.”6

Or they say:

“During his Caliphate Abu Bakr consulted Imam Ali (‘a) in most important matters.”7

In order to invalidate the latter claim it is sufficient to say that Abu Bakr in the last moments of his life appointed Umar as his successor.

“Abu Bakr being conscious of oppositions that will pose later, first summoned Abdur Rahman bin Auf and informed him about his decision and after his initial disapproval secured his permission. Then the next person he acquainted with his decision was Uthman bin Affan.

It is worth mention that when Abu Bakr spoke he advised both of them to keep the matter secret.

Anyway, why at all Abu Bakr mentioned his determination to these two? Why he did not take into account senior companions of Prophet. It is interesting to note that Abdur Rahman bin Auf was from Bani Zahra tribe while Uthman bin Affan was from Bani Umayyah. Both were old friends of Abu Bakr and had become Muslims through him. They were in the group of Abu Bakr and Umar. Later too they were seen in the six-person committee of Umar.

Anyway, in case Abu Bakr really intended consultation why he did not consult Ali (‘a)? Who according to the Egyptian writer,8 Dr. Noori Gaffer, commanded more respect and was more competent than others. And this was an obvious tyranny and trespassing on eligibility and right of Ali.”9

B) Items Of Consultation Of Umar With Imam Ali (‘a)

The following are the results of statistical analysis of Second Caliph’s consultations with Amirul Momineen (‘a):

In all there were 85 instances when Umar consulted Imam Ali (‘a). Among them 59 are religious problems such as jurisprudence, criminal sentences, judgments; 21 cases pertaining to religious knowledge; three instances of monetary affairs and two military problems.

It is interesting that out of these 85 cases only in 27 cases did Umar have direct contact with the Imam – 13 of them in field of religious verdicts and 13 in field of knowledge. One case was financial. On the other hand they claim that:

“Hazrat Umar was always consulting Hazrat Ali (‘a) in his difficulties and problems.”10

A little attention and care will prove to us that Umar contacted Ali whenever he was convinced that no one else could help him to solve his problem. Because in 13 other instances also on legislative side Umar did not consult Ali first. He first sought companions’ opinion and then consulted Ali.

Similarly, he did the same in two other financial cases and a question of religious knowledge; after having had asked companions he finally approached Ali.

Statistics show that in 42 cases Imam Ali (‘a) was never contacted for any consultation. Moreover, the presence of Imam Ali (‘a) in the scene was ignored. Umar depended upon his own opinion and decision and thought himself needless of Ali’s opinion. As he was wrong in his opinion, Imam feared it would establish a wrong precedent. So, he himself, without being invited, gave his opinion and corrected the wrong decision. The Imam did this in the interest of Islam as he saw himself responsible before God.

Although by wrong interpretation of these steps of Amirul Momineen (‘a) it is claimed that:

“Ali (‘a) had a prominent presence during the Caliphate of Umar, and had a position of presidentship among the companions.”!11

Despite such a position can it be possible that in 42 cases the Caliph did not think of referring to Amirul Momineen (‘a)? This negligence of the Second Caliph calls your attention to another narration in this connection:

Did The Second Caliph Always Consult Ali? Did He Always Accept His View?

In historical sources it is recorded that Umar was asked about marriage and divorce and Umar answered. Regarding this Amirul Momineen (‘a) has said:

“He wrote down while I was present there. But he did not ask me nor did he refer to me as though his knowledge had enriched him beyond me. I wanted to correct him. But I preferred to be silent because he will be vilified by God. But no one censured him. On the contrary, they appreciated him. They made it a tradition. Even if a mad man would have passed judgment it would have been better.12”13

Similarly, there are evidences that the Second Caliph was not always inclined to consult Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a):

“In the fifteenth year of Hijra, Umar wanted to go to Jerusalem. He consulted Ali. Ali told him not to go there, but Umar went. It is said that he appointed Ali in his place in Medina and went to Syria and Palestine.

Again, in the same year he consulted Ali what to do with the revenue of Iraq and other conquered countries. Amirul Momineen (‘a) advised him to distribute them among warriors and campaigners of respective countries. Umar did not accept. He treasured the revenue. Later it was spent on salaries after the fashion of Iran of those days.”14

C) Instances Of Uthman Consulting Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a)

The following are the results of statistical analysis of Third Caliph’s consultations with Amirul Momineen (‘a):

In all there are 8 instances when the Third Caliph sought Ali’s advice. All these are with regard to jurisprudence, religious decrees, dispensing punishments and judgments. In no instance is it recorded that the Caliph sought Imam’s advice directly with due attention to the presence of Imam (‘a) in the society and the possibility of his getting benefit from his guidance and advices.

Regretfully we see that in only three cases the Caliph referred to the Imam directly. In other cases, Ali’s presence on the spot was the reason for his advice.

More interesting is the fact that in instance no. 5 Uthman addressed Imam (‘a) in the following words:

“You oppose us very much.”15

Paying close attention to this statement will tell you about the truth behind claim of good relations between the Caliphs and Amirul Momineen (‘a). Because: had judged this matter he would have said more than this.

“From Uthman’s statement to Imam (‘a): ‘Indeed you oppose us very much’ it can be nicely concluded that Imam (‘a) had opposed Uthman in various issues.

Indeed it is a well-known that the opposition of Imam (‘a) was not due to personal enmity and selfish motives; but when he saw that the Caliph was going against a divine command or creating an innovation in religion he used to oppose him and this matter becomes clearer on scrutiny of other arguments between him and Uthman. For example regarding the lawfulness of meat hunted by others, Uthman consumed it while in Hajj and when the Imam recited the verse of Quran: ‘and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage’,16 instead of confessing his mistake he became angry and said:

You have made this food bitter for me!”17

While the unity-seekers claim:

“Circumstances during the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan were also like the tenures of the previous Caliphs and he in numerous instances consulted His Eminence in problems connected to faith and jurisprudence as mentioned in books of traditions, jurisprudence and History.”!18

The authenticity of the above claim can be judged from the following historical document:

“Uthman consulted the Imam as regards the decision about Ibn Umar. His Eminence said that retaliation must be taken from him and he must be executed because his hands were smeared with innocent Muslim blood.

Although Uthman did not accept Imam’s opinion.”19

In the same way in this matter20:

“Uthman gave precedence to the statement of Amr bin Aas over that of

Imam Ali (‘a) and the Muhajireen and Ansaar.”21

Results Of Statistical Analysis

Result A) Of the total of 107 cases only three concern finance and three cases are related to military matters. In these cases the Imam did not initiate his opinion unless he was requested.

Now the question arises that in duration of Caliphs which stretched to twenty-five years, statistics show that only on six occasions the Imam was asked to give his opinion. In other cases, Imam himself intruded because he saw that the Caliph’s claim was incorrect. When such is the reality, how can they claim that:

“His Eminence was present in all political and martial matters in the form of highest authority of consultation and the trustworthy and truthful one of the Caliphs.”!22

Can all political and martial instances of twenty-five years be condensed into only six cases?

History shows that in any rulership such instances are more.

With a little consideration: “It can be easily said that with the group of Abu Bakr and Umar coming to power, the period of political isolation of Hazrat Ali (‘a) began and it continued for 25 years.”23

Result B) From 107 cases 71 concern legislation and judiciary and thirty are regarding faith and knowledge. This makes a total of 101 cases.

We request extremist unity-seekers to reconsider their following claims:

“Umar also did not do anything without consulting Ali.”!24

“The Second Caliph used to say…we are commanded by Prophet to consult Ali.”!25

“Mostly the Second Caliph preferred Ali’s opinion to that of others.”!26

“Before him Abu Bakr and later Uthman also always consulted Ali.”!27

“Throughout 25 years Ali acted as a guide and consultant in all affairs.”!28

“Caliphs too had accepted him as a consultant in all matters.”!29

In all these 101 cases, only 17 times they contacted Imam directly. In a period of 25 years this number shows how little they cared for him or his presence. They claim such because they want to cover this shortcoming. They themselves know facts are not as they claim. In this direct contact, 16 items were about knowledge and religion and 17 concerned religious knowledge. That is 33 out of 101; which is only one-third.

In other words there remain 68 items in which either there was no attention from the side of the Caliph to the presence of Imam (‘a) - in 42 cases. And in 16 cases the Caliphs did not want to ask the Imam so first he asked others and only later the Imam.

In ten cases when the Caliph did not pay any attention to the presence of the Imam, Amirul Momineen (‘a) as a person present in the society mentioned his opinion.

The reason is not obscure. It is that the Caliphs wanted to cut short possibilities of Imam’s credit among the people and to hinder his knowledge taking root in society.

It could be summed up in a single sentence thus:

“They avoided every type of action and even statement that could strengthen the trust of society in him.”30

Final Analysis about Caliphs’ Consultation with Amirul Momineen (‘a)

“It was not that the Caliphs showed courtesy of inviting Ali to government meetings or take his advice as a minister or senior experienced dignitary. And that he accepted thus showing his cooperation with them. Rather the Caliphs did not even do the justice and well being of the Ummah by allowing them to benefit from the Imam’s advice. Their behavior with him was such that it isolated him from social and political arenas and he resorted to farming, cultivation and peasantry.

Whenever they sought his advice, they did so because they had no alternative. And if their praise and appreciation of Amirul Momineen (‘a) has been found in history it is because it was not possible to deny the excellences of His Eminence.”31

Besides it was ignorance on their part about Islam32 and its laws, rules and legislative questions. They as successors of Prophet had no ground to put forth excuse of their ignorance or not knowing matters. Likewise, they had no excuse to justify their occupation of the office inspite of having no knowledge of the very decrees, commands and holy verses and text. There are 42 cases when Imam Ali (‘a) clearly proved their inability to handle the office. History has recorded these instances. Ali has saved them from committing blunders. Else they would have gone astray; and others too would have followed them. The wrong would have become common or a standard. They, in their station of leadership, if be so ignorant it reflects their unfitness to occupy Prophet’s place as his successors. Further there are occasions in history when the Second Caliph admitted his inability and Ali’s superiority.33 Such views and opinions cannot be impregnated with a good will or good terms between two sides. Beyond this, Muawiyah too has acknowledged superiority of Ali. If such things are indication of good terms can we believe that Muawiyah too was on good terms with Ali?

As we said one of the reasons that impelled Ali to help Caliphs by his advice was to disclose to the Ummah their inability in handling affairs and leading the Ummah. This he did in the best way. But the Ummah had gone somnolent to the extent that it did not wake up. The obstinacy was so deep that the Ummah required a greater shock to move. There are historical evidences that show the extent of ignorance of the Second Caliph. In one of the divine decrees regarding inheritance, Umar changed the ruling altogether and replaced it by one created by his own ignorance. This ruling is called Ghowl and it still is in practice by his followers.34

Imam (‘a) considered Umar’s verdict in this matter as innovation which showed his ignorance of divine laws; His Eminence (‘a) in this matter not only opposed the Caliph he also censured the Islamic Ummah and said:

“Reason for such innovations is they surrendered leadership of Islamic society to people who were not worthy of it. If ruling power had been in the hands of those whom Allah had selected, the matter of Ghowl would not have existed today. And there would not have been any difference in divine law; because the knowledge of all this is with Ali.”35

In the same way, in crises, sentences like: “Had Ali not been there, Umar would have perished,” would remind that:

“Umar has said this about one against whom he aligned with Quraish and usurped his rights.”36

An important point that can be recalled from analysis of confessions of Caliphs is that claims like these have another aim also, and that is to justify and cover their usurpation of the rightful rulership of Imam (‘a).

Therefore claims of always consulting Amirul Momineen (‘a) and that also in administrative and military affairs is in fact an exaggeration they voiced in reply to those who objected like Ibn Abbas.

Pay attention to the following historical document:

Umar, during his Caliphate, said to Ibn Abbas: “Ali was more suitable for rulership than me and Abu Bakr.”

Ibn Abbas at once asked: In spite of saying this why did you sideline him?

Umar answered him immediately: “We do not take decisions without his permission and consultation.”37

By this he avoided the censure for usurping Caliphate from Ali.

Such proceedings can be termed as political attitude. This went a great deal to satisfy companions of Prophet as they thought that they were in the scene and having a share in running affairs. This minimized their censure. This same attitude Abu Bakr adopted against Ansaar at Saqifah.

Umar wanted to utilize the presence of the Prophet’s companions but he was afraid to give them government posts and considered it unwise. So he limited it to extent of advice and consultation.

“On one hand the Caliph wanted to profit by family of Abbas in matters of governance but on the other he did not want them to be in power all the time. So he refrained from it. When the Governor of Humis38 died Umar came to Abdullah Ibn Abbas and asked him if he would like to take governorship of Humis. But before everything he revealed his view to him…39

Ibn Abbas also replied to the Caliph: I don’t want to be your governor... Umar at last said to Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Then at least give me advice.”40

It seems Umar learned this from Ibn Abi Qahafa Abu Bakr in Saqifah Bani Saada; because as we said it was only through this that Abu Bakr was able to pacify the Ansaar:

“In the end Abu Bakr assured them that in case they accept rulership of Muhajireen they would be their counsels and nothing would be done without consulting them.”41

The same policy was used with Ali also so that they can tell others – even today – that:

“Imamate and scientific expertise of Ali (‘a) was already known to Caliphs and they had acknowledged this.”42

On the other hand the Caliphs were always anxious to obtain legitimacy for their rule and their becoming Caliphs. In this respect, they were willing to lay hand on any opportunity useful to them. So they wanted to draw Imam’s attention to them. They at least wanted people to believe they were on good terms and good relations lasted between them and Imam. These oral confessions and praises came into being for this purpose. Through these tactics they wanted to deceive the people at the same also putting a lid on their own deficiencies.

Because whenever Amirul Momineen (‘a) interfered and solved difficult problems or replied to complicated religious questions a question arose in the minds of the people that:

“Why should a man so learned not become the holder of an important post like Islamic Caliphate? Instead the responsibility had gone to one who is bereft of all this knowledge.”

In reply to this Umar appeared side-by-side one of the most learned man of his time among the people. So they say:

“According to narrations of both sects, the Second Caliph said: If Ali had not been there, Umar would have perished and he addressed His Eminence, Ali (‘a) saying: You are my Master. Thus showing that good relations existed between him and Imam Ali (‘a).”!43

As if the Imam was their minister and consultant?!!

As if the presence of Imam furnished credibility to Caliphs and a justification of their weaknesses and defects.!!

It is thus claimed:

“The Caliphs in numerous matters asked the Imam for his opinion and consulted him and the Imam supervised the acts of the rulers and guided and advised them.”!44

During his Caliphate time and again Umar sought Ali’s advice or without his asking Ali (‘a) mentioned his opinion and Umar accepted it.”!45

“Umar asked for co-operation of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) in the most difficult situations and through the guidance of Imam solved his problems.”!46

It was that the revolution of Islam was a religious and cultural revolution. More than armed confrontation it required scientific and cultural weapons. After the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) Ali (‘a) took up these important functions.”!47

“In this way the Imam acted like a minister and guide of the rulers and was like a reliable point of reference for the Muslims and believers in behavior and practice of Islam as the Holy Prophet (S) was.”!48

“Imam Ali (‘a) in that same condition did not refrain from dispensing consultation to the Righteous Caliphs.”!49

“Imam Ali (‘a) after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) during the period of all the three Caliphs with his divinely bestowed ministership and foresight was the pivot and axis of Islamic revolution and he bore the responsibility of cultural revolution. He maintained Muslim unity and guided the people and the Caliphs.”!50

The notable point in the explanation and analysis of scientific, religious and jurisprudential activities of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) is that the steps that the

Imam took regarding his judgments on various topics, it became apparent how much the Caliphs would have distorted Islam had the Imam not been present.

For example during the period of the Second Caliph:

“The number of judgments from Ali (‘a) that in this period remained in force are astonishing. All these were after the time when the Caliph had issued contrary orders and Ali (‘a) had corrected them.”51

It was in this manner that all the attitudes of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) were aimed at removing the dust of deviation and ruin from the face of teachings of real Islam and prevention of innovations and illegalities to enter jurisprudential issues and to finally propagate and explain sources of Islamic faith; it had nothing to do with friendly relations, co-operation and cultural support of the rulers who had usurped his Caliphate!

Yet they go on making claims like:

“Attitude of Hazrat Ali (‘a) during 25 years of rule of the three Caliphs is that of co-operation and support, guidance and advice, restraining from deviations and removal of the doubts of the Caliphs and prohibition of anything that could destabilize their position. Is all this enmity?”!52

“Among the other instances of co-operation! And unity-seeking of Ali (‘a) in the matter of support! And unity of thought! And consultation and counseling the Caliphs was before it, whether in complicated political and military matters or in complex and difficult social and jurisprudential issues, even in personal affairs,”!53

“During Umar’s reign also His Eminence remained as the most active and greatest force of social awakening in Islamic society leaving his footprints of helpfulness on the sands of time. He provided consultation and guidance to the Caliph of the time and Umar during his Caliphate referred to him many times or even without his request His Eminence gave his opinion54 and he (Umar) agreed,”!55

“From this angle can be remembered instances of co-operation between our lord, Ali and our lord, Umar and can be described as a relation of sincere friendship and amity beyond description!

They continued to work for achieving the aims of Caliphate together in a co-operative manner! And for its well being.”!56

“Ali Murtadha was the best advisor and sincere well wisher of our lord Umar…”!57

“His Eminence, Ali (‘a)…always throughout the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was his sincere friend and intimate advisor.”!58

Theological Reminder

Among the important points derived from the confession of the Caliphs (in proof of truthfulness of Shiite beliefs in discussion of Imamate) is refutation of claim of superiority of the Caliphs and as a result puts a question mark on the legality of Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar.

We should know that Ahlul Sunnat have different opinions as regard the qualifications of Caliph. Some like Fadl bin Ruzbahan do not consider superiority to be a requirement of Caliphate; but others like Ibn Taimmiyah accepts this condition and then goes out of his way to prove the superiority of the Caliphs and negates all the claims of Imamiyah on the absolute superiority of Amirul Momineen (‘a).59

Differences between the Aims of Caliphs and Ali Regarding Consultations

In one bird’s eye view, we can separate the line of Caliphs with that of Ali:

“During periods of Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar, Imam Ali (‘a) did not do anything against them. He did not interfere in political and social affairs as if they had reached an understanding that Ali and his family will be left alone untroubled and he in return would have no say in politics. Except when the Caliph should see it as his own good to take advice and help from him.”60

“In important matters whenever Umar could not take a decision by himself he sought Ali’s advice.”61

Because: “The main intellectual specialty of the Second Caliph is that being a ruler of the society he considered himself to be having extensive powers. He not only considered himself restricted to political and judicial affairs he also thought that he had the special right to make laws and frame rules of the Shariah. He during his Caliphate, relying on these powers went on to make changes in religion and introduced innovations. And he did not feel that he was bound by any limits except those of his comprehensive understanding of Quran and Shariah. In instances when he found himself helpless he resorted to consultation with Companions (including Ali).”62

“…it is not possible to find any Caliph than Umar and Uthman who considered that they had the discretion to make any changes in religion even to the extent of worship acts…

Such freedom of opinion in the matter of worship acts is only part of discretion that was exercised in other matters. The Caliph did not refrain from creating innovations. Expansion of Islamic territories brought them face to face with many new legal problems and therefore mostly they endeavored to solve them even through consultation with Companions. All these solutions were on the basis of Prophet’s teachings63 and on the other hand consultation with Companions or thirdly from the side of inventive faculty of the Caliph himself.64 This went on to increase the spread of creations of the regime.”65

On the other hand:

“It will seen clearly that co-operation and guidance of His Eminence in removing numerous doubts of the Caliph was to protect Muslim society from the danger of decline and that the foundations of Islam may not be destroyed…if His Eminence (‘a) had not interfered and co-operated, especially in religious and political issues it would have led to deviation of Islam from its true path and created great problems which the Imam could not bear to see.”66

Therefore that which the Imam (‘a) had in his aim was protection of Islam from deviation and destruction and on this way he did not give any importance to the regime or Caliphate. Even then they wish to distort the facts claiming that:

“Did not the co-operation of Hazrat Ali (‘a) to the three Caliphs continue for 25 years till the last moments of the life of the Third Caliph? Can all these co-operations, support and help in social and political matters throughout this period be without sincerity?”!67

“Indeed we must not forget that he [His Eminence, Ali (‘a)] even in the field of action and interfering in some matters was only to the extent of consultation; so that the machinery of Caliphate may not benefit by his co-operation and support to strengthen itself and gain a sort of legitimacy. Because he knew that the Islamic Ummah would see contradiction between acceptance and political value of the Caliphs and his (Ali’s) own religious legality. And all the efforts of Caliphate was also to gain legitimacy for themselves by pretending to take advice and co-operation of the Imam. And thus they may get some political and public acceptance. But they were not able to do so. And in the end Ali (‘a) made clear to the people that the Caliphs were not having any legitimacy; and he did so to defend an important pillar of faith.68 This was a great defeat for Caliphate. Till the very end they could not succeed in reconciling the two.”69

“Whenever Ali (‘a) saw that some mistakes of the Caliphs were going to play havoc with the future of Muslims he used to at once interfere and do what was possible. He even risked his life and property to prevent such eventualities. He never refrained to step forward whenever he sensed danger.”70 Therefore, “It is not seen in any source that the Caliph asked for his view and he desisted from giving it. Because it is not possible for one who spent his whole life in spread of Islam to see any harm coming to Muslims and that which was happening in the society. And we see that whenever the Caliph asked for his consultation he did not refuse it even though he saw that his rights are usurped.”71

- 1. Umar.

- 2. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 95.

- 3. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 175.

- 4. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 30.

- 5. Dar az-Zahra, Beirut, 1st Edition, 1414.

- 6. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 14.

- 7. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 8.

- 8. Refer: Ali wa Manawao, Matbuaat an-Najah, Cairo, 1396 A.H. 1976 A.D..

- 9. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 53.

- 10. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 104.

- 11. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 42.

- 12. In another version it is mentioned: While it was such a judgment that if a mad man.

- 13. Refer: Muhammad Ismail Ansari Zanjani: Translation of Asraar Aale Muhammad, Pg. 340

- 14. Muhammad Baqir Bahboodi: Seerah Alawi (1st Edition), Pg. 41; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 608.

- 15. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 289; quoting from Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, Pg. 100.

- 16. Surah Maidah 5:96.

- 17. Ibid. Pg. 290; quoting from: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 5, Pg. 44-46.

- 18. Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 32.

- 19. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali (‘a) and the Rulers), Pg. 174; quoting from Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 24.

- 20. Ibid. Pgs. 264-269.

- 21. Ibid. Pg. 269.

- 22. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 26, Khordad 1379.

- 23. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 51.

- 24. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 8.

- 25. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 6, Pg. 6.

- 26. Ibid. Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16.

- 27. Ibid. Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 2, Pg. 7.

- 28. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62.

- 29. Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pgs. 36-37.

- 30. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 51.

- 31. Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Nabawi: Pamphlet on Astaana-e-Ghadeer (Lecture on the topic of Ghadeer and Imamate, article on the subject of Amirul Momineen in the period of Caliphs – Araaf Noor Cultural Organization – Summer 81), Pg. 19.
This pamphlet was republished in 1382 and in a book form also in 1382.

- 32. “The Second Caliph was not fond of much discussion and religious arguments due to his weakness in knowledge.” (Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 97).

- 33. Refer: Ibid. Pgs. 191-220.

- 34. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 273-276.

- 35. Ibid. Pg. 276; quoting from: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 17, Pg. 426.

- 36. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 55.

- 37. Refer: Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 167; quoting from Mahaazaraat al-Udaba, Pg. 4, Pg. 478.

- 38. A Syrian city.

- 39. “He suggested to Abdullah to take the rulership of Humis on the condition that he will not use his position in favor of Caliphate of Ali (‘a) after the Caliph.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 281).

- 40. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 120.

- 41. Yusuf Gholami: Bohraan-e-Jansheeni-e-Payambar (Crisis of Succession to the Prophet), Pg. 27; quoting from: Al-Kamil, Vol. 2, Pg. 329; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 243; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 582.

- 42. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 156.

- 43. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381.

- 44. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 25.

- 45. Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 139; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 52.

- 46. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 81.

- 47. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Interview in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 16.

- 48. Markaz-e-Pazuhashhai Sada wa Seema: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 182, Azar 80, Pg. 37.

- 49. Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 34.

- 50. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 51. There are only 8 instances out of 85 when the Imam (‘a) expressed his view before the opinion of the Second Caliph can be acted upon as can be seen the tables.

- 52. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Tir 1381.

- 53. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 125.

- 54. There are only 8 instances out of 85 when the Imam (‘a) expressed his view before the opinion of the Second Caliph can be acted upon as can be seen the tables.

- 55. Ibid. Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pgs. 125-126.

- 56. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 57. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 58. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 11.

- 59. Refer: Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pg. 160.

- 60. Muhammad Baqir Bahboodi: Seerah Alawi (1st Edition), Pg. 41.

- 61. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 55.

- 62. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali (‘a)-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 97.

- 63. Although if he could not think of anything he would refer to the Sunnah of Prophet (S). (Ibid. Pg. 99).

- 64. These were personal derivations of the Caliph variously based on exigencies. (Ibid. Pg. 99).

- 65. Ibid. Pgs. 98-99.

- 66. Ibid. Pg. 56.

- 67. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Teer 1381.

- 68. This statement requires correction. The phrase “Absence of armed uprising” is more appropriate.

- 69. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pgs. 97-98.

- 70. Ibid. Pgs. 103-104.

- 71. Ibid. Pg. 109.

Discourse 3: Criticism And Scrutiny Of Analyses Publicized Regarding Ali’s Cooperation With Caliphs’ Government

Conjectures Spread In This Regard

Some analyses relate to political attitudes and practical conduct of Imam Ali (‘a) with regard to Caliphs. Besides they also base their claims on his associates’ acceptance of post in military or civil service.

The efforts of unity-seekers to establish for readers that Imam was on good terms with Caliphs have distorted facts. Many historical evidences are overlooked. The reader concludes wrongly for himself that the Imam and his friends entertained agreeable relations with Caliphs. They cooperatively ran governmental affairs. Such close relations do not allow any crevice between the two wings of Islam.

They put forward this argument:

“If he cooperated with Caliphs for 25 years…if he was mild and polite with Caliphs’ government...You also do the same in this regard… and follow the behavior of your Imam regarding the Caliphs.”1

“His Eminence (‘a) did not leave the side of Abu Bakr for even a moment.”2

“When His Eminence paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, he honored all assignment given to him to the best of his capacity and this trend had a good impact on his relations with Caliphs.”3

“And as for co-operation and support of Imam Ali (‘a) and his associates with Umar, it was not restricted to advice and counsel, they also practically helped in this regard and even accepted governmental posts and also participated in battles without any hesitation.”!4

“During the period of the Second Caliph, Hazrat Ali (‘a) always solved religious problems and difficult jurisprudential matters in which the Caliphate asked his counsel. In encounters and military issues…at no time did he (Ali) allow his personal feelings and negative thoughts to deter him from all this.”!5

What Do Historical Documents And Sources Indicate?

To answer such deviation in analysis of historical events we first dwell upon some historical proofs that clearly disprove the deviated analysis:

Imam Ali (‘a) absolutely and always refrained from accepting a government post in Caliphs’ rule; more than this, Caliphs also were well aware of such attitude of the Imam towards them.

Regarding his cooperation with the First Caliph, it can be said:

Documentary Proof A) When some persons like Aswad Ansi, Musailama and Sajjah claimed prophethood and Abu Bakr prepared an army to fight them, he consulted Amr bin Aas regarding the command of forces and asked for his opinion about the choice of Ali. Amr bin Aas told him:

Ali would not cooperate with you;6 so Abu Bakr gave up the idea.7

Documentary Proof B) In the same way the Caliph tried to appoint His Eminence (‘a) for quelling disturbances of Kinda tribe, but Umar considered it impractical.8

The only instance when it could be claimed that Abu Bakr assigned command to Ali (‘a) was the responsibility of guarding the original road to Medina in a time when he (Abu Bakr) himself had caused the army of apostates to attack the city and they had reached near Medina.

Here the point worth nothing thing is that this case is also narrated only in Sunni sources and there are many doubts in its authenticity9 an example of which is as follows:

“Ibn Athir, in the portion of his history dealing with the campaign of First Caliph against false prophets, mentions: Abu Bakr assigned Ali, Zubair, Abdullah bin Masood and Talha to guard the hilly roads around Medina.

His Eminence, Ali (‘a) did not accept it because the issue of Caliphate was more important to him than this trifle matter of a person claiming prophethood and in numerous instances he disputed the issue of Caliphate with Abu Bakr…is it right that he should take the command of such a frivolous matter?

Does the narration of Ibn Athir not show how he and his co-religionists try to pose Ali as an agent of First Caliph and even at the price of mentioning the name of His Eminence in few instances!”10

Or consider the following:

“Beliefs of Shia and Sunni are not at parity on the issue of cooperation of Imam (‘a).”11 “It is necessary to mention that supposing this case is true, fighting the false claimants of prophethood (which is an important matter) is not something that needs permission of an usurper Caliph; on the contrary, the Ummah and usurper of Caliphate all are under mandate to seek permission of an Infallible Imam and be at his disposal to fight the false claimants. Besides, this issue is also binding on the Infallible Imam himself.”12

Therefore contrary to the claim publicized about the permanent company of Imam (‘a) with Abu Bakr it should be announced that:

“Relations between Abu Bakr and Imam were very cold and not worthy of mention.”13

About Imam’s Co-operation with the Second Caliph it can be said:

“The Second Caliph also was not pleased with the obstinacy and haughtiness of Imam Ali (‘a) and many times he appointed in-betweens who can motivate the Imam (‘a) to assist the regime; but Amirul Momineen (‘a) only looked to the interests of Islam. At the time of need, he forwarded his expert opinion. Commonly he ignored the requests of Caliphs for all-round cooperation.14

Documentary Proof A) Of course it was not that the Imam always fulfilled their requests. The Caliph asked Ali to accompany him in the journey to Syria, but Ali refused. Umar complained to Ibn Abbas:

I asked your cousin to accompany me to Syria but he refused…

Documentary Proof B) Likewise in the battle of Qadasia, Muslims sought Umar’s help.

The Caliph asked Imam (‘a) to take the command and go to the battlefront, but the Imam (‘a) did not accept.”15

Therefore the Caliph sent Saad bin Abi Waqqas.16

It is clear that in both cases the Imam rejected the request, still they falsely claim:

“In this way Ali (‘a) was always by the side of Umar.”!17

“When Umar asked Ali to take the command of Muslim forces to conquer Iran, Imam did so.”!18

Attention and contemplation on this matter related to always ‘Absence of acceptance of co-operation and bearing responsibility’ makes every researcher and investigator think His Eminence has not always denied co-operation with the caliphal regime; thus his non-acceptance of co-operation and responsibility in chosen instances must be for some special reason; such that Amirul Momineen (‘a) had some standard on the basis of which he either chose to help or refuse.

Therefore in the first stage it will be seen that the Imam never refused his help. But in the second stage it will be seen that the Imam also in some cases hit out at the chest of the rulers and refused to co-operate in some matters.

Conclusion

The attitude of the Imam in accepting occasional cooperation with government and fortuitous refusal to cooperate leads a reader to conclude that Imam had a particular outlook to the matters. It further leads to interpret the type and kind of relations he had with Caliphs.

Understanding Imam’s attitude will lead us to understand motives of both sides – why the posts were offered and why the Imam denied.

In fact after this point is proved that Imam only refused co-operation with the regime under some conditions and accepted responsibility only under some conditions the following two questions arise:

Firstly, what was the aim of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in co-operating with the Caliphs or refusing it?

Secondly, what was the policy Caliphs pursued towards the Imam when some posts were proposed to him in their government?

We shall dwell on these questions in the course of this book.

Analysis Of Ali’s Participation In Caliphs’ Government

“A scrutiny into Imam’s dealings with Caliphs shows that when Imam saw his cooperation would reflect his personal support to Caliphs he withheld his cooperation. But when occasions called his attention towards greater interests of Muslims or Islam itself he extended his cooperation without hesitation. Such as we see in the events in early period of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, which was the start of things going astray from leadership. Perversion and deviation from the right path had already commenced. So the Imam is less seen among the cooperators.”19

In those days also Ali did not accept any office, which could have reflected his support and he did not desire to be any token or sign of his support to a deviated Caliphate and a perverted power.

Ali was aware of the fact that a peaceful life and security of that society depended on his co-operation with the junta. So he extended his co-operation.”20 “He had an understanding of the conditions prevalent at that time. So he cooperated when necessary although it was very bitter and much painful to him. He was readily available when existence of Islam was in question. But it cannot be said that he supported the system. Or whatever they did was agreeable to him. He also could not forget their incompetence to the post of Caliphate.

They also were aware of this attitude of Ali.”21

“The point worth nothing is that it was very hard for Ali to accept assignments or an office from those very persons who had occupied the seat, which should have belonged to him. They were usurpers of his right. They were sitting where Prophet in Ghadeer had already made him sit. How could he come to terms with his own oppressors or accept from them what they give while everything was his. He was expected to forego the whole and accept a part.”22

“However the isolation of Ali indicates that both sides knew each other and also that he cannot behave towards them that could be an indicator of his approval of their Caliphate. It was a divine post. God should choose. And God had chosen him and the Prophet had conveyed God’s choice. Ghadeer Khumm was a matter of yesterday. Still nobody had forgotten the ceremony.”23

“During the periods of three Caliphs Ali did not take any active part in government – politically or running its affairs. What he gave was advice by way of consultation, that’s all. He had no membership in their governments. It can be said that he was rather an opposition leader from a distance.”24

What Was Caliphs’ Aim In Giving Government Responsibilities To Ali?

On the basis of what is said so far it is possible to sketch the policy of Caliphs in giving these responsibilities to Amirul Momineen (‘a) as follows:

“For them it would have been far better had Ali taken the command of army under their order. A strong and powerful rival would have been in their row – one well-versed to reason and narrate Prophet’s words.”25

“Can it be accepted that the Caliph dismissed Khalid bin Saeed bin Aas from post of commander due to his inclination or leniency towards Ali? Their design was to give the post to Ali that could bring credibility and validity to their government. Then to dismiss him declaring among people that he was incompetent for the job. Anyway, in both cases they would have gained.”26

In the same way the regime by so doing would have satisfied the block of Ali and voices that clamored that Caliphate was right of Ali would have been muted by Ali himself.

“The Kinda tribes including Hadhramaut were pro-Ali. Because Caliphate was drawn away from Prophet’s house, they raised their voice of protest and opposition, which ended in a revolt.

So the regime and especially Abu Bakr tried to delegate Ali to quell the rebellion. They wanted to take advantage of Ali’s name. If he were seen in government, their opposition would have subsided.”27

In conclusion it can be said:

“The Caliph was trying to bring Ali into this matter and he consulted Umar in this regard…Umar was apprehensive about the excellences of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a). He said that Ali is very careful in this matter (he is not inclined in encounter with the apostates) and if he did not attach any formal feature to apostates’ uprising nobody would go to war against them…

In addition to describing the fear of Umar this statement also shows Ali’s moral status in Muslim society. That is such was his influence in the society that if he did not show any inclination in that war no one among the Muslims would go. Therefore because of this fear Abu Bakr was too prudent in his behavior with Ali.”28

“Indeed Umar had another fear and he did not want Hadhramaut to be an additional front for the new Caliphate.

Though Ali (‘a) did not go to fight them, the regime of Caliphate even before seeking opinion of Ali (‘a) was afraid of this matter and they sent Akrama.”29

From this aspect it can be said:

Caliphs also in every condition were not prone to give any government office to Ali and this was complimentary to ‘absence of inclination to always co-operate’.

In other words, Caliphs wanted an opportunity to strengthen pillars of their Caliphate and gain Ali’s indulgence into affairs, which to them was tantamount to legitimacy of their Caliphate. On the other hand whenever Ali co-operated he did so in a way, which could not be interpreted as his approval to their Caliphate.

These and such efforts continued even after extending the borders of the country.

“The Caliph and his friends could not ignore the useful force such as him. They knew the courage and bravery of Ali. In lifetime of Prophet, they had witnessed from close Ali’s battles and fighting. So Ali with regard to battles was a very important element.

The Caliph and his associates also were not unaware of this or were opposed to it.

On the other hand his absence from the wars and his isolation could be a matter of question in the society.

Therefore the Caliph and his associates tried to involve Ali in government responsibilities. They wanted him to take part in military victories. This could have given credibility to their government. Besides, his supporters and Bani Hashim would be pleased and satisfied.”30

“Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) during these battles kept the same attitude, which he had in the time of Abu Bakr… The Caliph could not remain ignorant about Imam’s cooperation and guidance…He knew very well that Ali was not willing to participate in battles. Therefore he decided to get benefit of his advice. Ali was sensitive about Muslims and Islam. Therefore in the shape of consultations he rendered services to them…

Ali did not like to accept any responsibility, which directly or indirectly could be a helping element to the usurped Caliphate.”31

As it is seen, the regime was trying its best to establish contacts with Imam which could provide them validity.

When this could not be achieved, Caliphate tried to established indirect relations through consultations.

Abu Bakr wanted to assign Ali the command of army to fight against Ashath bin Qays. He took the advice of Umar, Umar was anxious and anticipated Ali’s refusal, which would lay harmful impact on their Caliphate. Therefore Umar proposed:

“My view is that you must keep Ali in Medina under your care as you are not needless of him and it is necessary for you to consult Ali in country’s affairs.”32

Indeed, what need the Caliph had of Imam’s advice and support?

Why Umar reminded the Caliph to observe that?

The reply to these questions can be found in the carefulness of Umar in rejecting the proposal of making Amirul Momineen (‘a) the commander of forces. When he said:

“I fear that Ali will refuse to fight these people and he will no do Jihad with these people. And if he does so no one from his side will move except under force and compulsion.”33

Now it must be asked:

How is it possible to attribute good relations between Imam (‘a) and the Caliphs and also proving that he took an active part of Wilayat during their regimes. And it is claimed that:

“The First Caliph was very much in need of his courage and valor in the fields of battle just as he always benefited from the knowledge, wisdom and advice of His Eminence in various matters in Medina Munawwara, the capital of the nascent regime.”!34

Was Ali given a Governmental responsibility during the tenure of the Caliphs?

After this investigation the only thing that is in need of analysis and interpretation is the claim that:

“During the period of Umar’s Caliphate whenever he left Medina, Ali was his deputy. He took the charge of affairs until his return.”35

Reply to this conjecture can be divided into two parts:

Part A: Analysis Of Acceptance Of Responsibility For Some Particular Instances

“According to Sunni sources there are only three occasions when Ali was appointed in place of Umar in Medina. He took the office and ran the affairs as he administered the country. Indeed, it does not seem probable that Ali should have accepted. How can he accept from one who had usurped Caliphate from him and he (Ali) had repeatedly stressed upon his superiority and competency to the job?

Such claims need to be investigated first. Why such a case is not referred to by any Shia historian?

It could be possible that Ali could have taken charge of judicial affairs not political or administrative ones…”36

“Shia books do not stress upon Ali’s deputation by Umar.

It appears that Ali, during the office of Umar, could have attended affairs of people and handled matters of justice.”37

“However the fundamental question is: Why at all Ali should accept to be deputy of Umar or his substitute? On the other hand Ali never agreed or saw any legality in Umar’s Caliphate. It was a thing that never belonged to him (Umar). Then he undergoes to be his deputy, to be his substitute. Why?

The answer lies in Tabari’s and Ibn Athir’s comments, which are congruous with Shia beliefs. As the very Caliphate of Umar from the viewpoint of Ali was short of legitimacy and lacked legal status the posts (if) given to others would also be illegal.

Thus on the basis of this acceptance of these responsibilities in fact would be hindering the qualified ones to get them. Because if in case posts are given to non-qualified persons it would be against divine will and Islamic values and Ali knew better than to have the power to oppose these illegalities to do thus; thus His Eminence (‘a) is not someone who sees illegal matters and does nothing about it.”38

Part B: Surrendering Responsibility To Ali In Some Particular Items

“During this period Ali was isolated from political arena. He did not occupy any post in Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. In Umar’s Caliphate, also he did the same. He did not even accept the post of commander for invading Iran.

The only exceptional case was when Umar had to leave for Palestine and he took with him senior companions of Prophet to help him in requirements of victory and success, while Ali’s had the responsibility of administration of Medina.

Although it is worth mention that Umar was strongly against Bani Hashim leaving Medina. He feared they would form groups in other areas and stage an uprising against his Caliphate.”39

The output of the policy of Second Caliph is surprising. He appointed Ali on three occasions in his place as his successor and does not appoint him in the six-person committee?!!

What was his aim in surrendering this responsibility to Amirul Momineen?

To comprehend the nature of relations of Caliphs’ government with Ali we refer to one more case:

“When Muhammad son of Abu Bakr wrote to Muawiyah censuring him for his disobedience to Imam Ali (‘a). Muawiyah in reply wrote to him that he had only followed the first two rulers.

Muawiyah added that those two persons did not intimate him in their confidential matters nor did they open way to him to share with them in affairs…”40

This shows that Caliphs did not want Ali to take any part in their affairs. Likewise they were not desirous of his advice. Whenever they sought his advice there was some other motive in it. Their motive in anyway was not in the interest of Islam or Islamic unity.

While they claim:

“Mutual relations between Ali and three Caliphs were towards preserving Islamic unity and the very seed of Islam itself.”41

Our endeavors in analysis of the relations are with the motive to understand the aim of Ali and the aim of Caliphs. Especially with regard to co-operation of His Eminence (‘a) in administrative and governmental affairs, which shall be explained and interpreted, so that the respected readers will see the difference between the aims of two sides. The outlook of Imam Ali (‘a) leads the reader to the root of the policy Caliphs held according to the demand of the occasion. But they overlook it and say:

“Until Muawiyah came to power, the successor of Prophet of God, Ali, adopted a policy of patience, tolerance, vigilance. His attitude with three Caliphs was friendly and co-operative. This resulted in good manners, good behavior and good conduct among Muslims. Inspite of criticism and censure expressed by Imam Ali (‘a) which were due to honesty, good manners and Islamic promise.”!42

Yes! Good demeanor and decorum, Islamic commitments and good manners formed the ground of cooperation of Imam Ali (‘a) with the three Caliphs. Whether the requests of Caliphs and their proposals too were based on same ground?

Let History answer:

“Caliphs’ government was very much in anticipation from Imam Ali (‘a). For instance, as he finally paid allegiance43 to Abu Bakr he was expected to give up or forego the demand for his right to Caliphate. Moreover, he was expected to be seen with sword in his hand to fight whoever opposed the Caliphs.

But the Imam rejected this request. Such an attitude and position of Imam was natural to impel the government to make him more humiliated in the view of people. This policy was able to isolate the Imam more and more.”44

In the same way:

“Among the complaints of Imam about the Caliphs was that they led a campaign to belittle the personality of Imam, which was highest and most respected one in the view of people during the days of Prophet.”45

Now when such is the case how can it be claimed that:

“That which this writer has claimed and proved is that there existed friendly relations between Hazrat Ali (‘a) and the Caliphs.”!46

Some examples of politics of belittling Amirul Momineen (‘a) are as follows:

“Umar in order to belittle Ali accorded more respect to Ibn Abbas. It was a policy so that Ibn Abbas may narrate traditions and give Tafseer of Quran.”47

“When Umar appointed the six-person committee he blamed each of them with a defect. He blamed Ali that he was a man having excess humor.”48

In short:

“The two Caliphs had assassinated the character of Ali among people and assassinated his personality.”49

The author of Pas az-Ghuroob writes: Even though the Bayyat of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) was effective in mobilizing forces it is also not unlikely that the Caliph made the attack a pretext to obtain the support of His Eminence.”50

“Jundab bin Abdullah says: After swearing allegiance to Uthman I went to Iraq. There I used to narrate the attributes of Ali to people. The best reply that I got from the people was this: Leave these words. Think of something that may benefit you.

I answered them: These things are beneficial to both you and me. But the people on hearing this got up and dispersed.”51

“In a society of Muslims, Imam was forgotten. Therefore it was for this reason that Imam during his Caliphate reminded people of his station, services and the battles he fought and won for the sake of Islam, his nearness and relationship with Prophet.”52

Did Amirul Momineen (‘a) Have Positive Outlook To Battles Of Caliph’s Period?

As you know battles in the period of Caliphs particularly the Second Caliph are viewed from different angles, especially by the unity-mongers.

Thus they say:

“Regrettably of our doubts is that Ali (‘a) did not find any worth of Islamic battles…we see how much he supported these battles?”!53

For the scrutiny of this claim, we invite you to read the translation of Political Analysis of the life of Imam Hasan Mujtaba by Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili. (2nd edition) pages 170-200. Which in fact is to refute the conjecture propagated that Imams Hasan and Husayn participated in battles during the rule of Caliphs.54

That which we wish to remind in this section is their claim that participation of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and his associates in the victories proves their support and co-operation to the Caliphs’ regime. This is same as claim of participation in other matters. Thus they claim:

“If this unity was not preserved by Ali and if there was no co-operation, understanding and tolerance among Caliphs all these battles would have not been attained by the Muslims within such a short span of time.”55

While it should not be overlooked that in all these types of matters there had always been in existence a wide gulf and crevice between Imam’s motives and those of Caliphs. To consider them to be on friendly terms is a basic and fundamental mistake. We quote here another mistaken claim:

“Our belief is that leaders of truth do not approve participation in these battles. They do not think these battles to be useful to Muslims and Islam.

Imams desired extension of influence of Islam and its expansion as far as the length of globe. But they want it in congruity with divine laws and the way Caliphs undertook was wrong and detrimental.”56

“Accordingly if we accept and surrender to principle of battles and military action of Caliphs, we cannot deny the fact that most methods of persons in charge of actions from Caliphs’ side were not coherent with decorum of Prophet or warriors of Prophet’s days. But in some cases, they differed greatly so the stance of Ali and Hasan and Husayn is different. So it is obvious when Ali and Hasan and Husayn did not accept Caliphate and they disputed its legitimacy they of course cannot accept their battles, the motive of battles and consequent battles therefrom.”57

Even then it is said:

“They wanted Imam’s co-operation; His Eminence refrained from giving it.”58

On the basis of this Imam did not take any initial step with regard to battles. He did not participate in any of them.

“In Shia historical sources we do not find any evidence that could prove Imam’s personal presence in any battles; likewise, presence of Hasan and Husayn also. Beyond this, we do not have any Sunni source that could prove for us direct presence of Imam Ali (‘a) in Caliph’s battles.”59

“So history denies their presence. The least we can agree is their presence as consultants and advisors. This they did because they wanted to address their mistakes. We believe that they (the Imams) having had said not a word that could reflect their approval of Caliphs’ government or policies.”60

Although in this regard, they have claimed:

“It is evident that if Imam Ali (‘a) had ill will to Umar or he were displeased with him, and regarded him usurper of his rights, he would always have been awaiting every opportunity to get back his right and for getting rid of the usurper of his rights…advised him to go personally to the battlefield and get killed there.”!61

“One of the clearest proofs of Ali’s sincerity and friendship to Abu Bakr…and support to Caliphate!...was his attitude when Abu Bakr departed…he took charge of the army...God forbid, if Ali had any rancor and malice at heart against Abu Bakr, or had paid allegiance to him by force under dissimulation, this was an excellent opportunity for him. But on the contrary he advised Abu Bakr against going to the battlefield.”!62

Therefore it can be said:

The only period when Caliphs took to expand borders of country that entailed military actions did Amirul Momineen (‘a) interfere at the level and to the extent of advice and consultation. He did this to minimize pillage and plunder. This resulted in safety of Islam and Muslims. Although there was a wide difference between the motive of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in dispensing advice and the motive of the Caliphs in seeking the counsel of the Imam (‘a). They were exactly opposite.

Here we point to one of the political aims:

“To wage wars in name of Jihad in the way of God is the best way to hold differences at home. In those circumstances if one wanted to knock the door of Justice to regain his usurped right and the applicant, however noblest among the people, was easily blamed as a world loving man or one who is after power.

On the basis of this, it was an excellent opportunity for men of government to achieve their cherished political aims and consolidate their position.”63

Did Associates Of Amirul Momineen (‘a) Have Active Presence In Caliphs’ Government?

Another conjecture repeated in wrong analyses of participation of and support of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with the Caliphs in administrative affairs is that the special and selected associates and companions of the Imam (‘a) with concurrence of Imam himself, were in contact with the Caliphs.

In such a way that ultimately these respected persons were put under the command of the Caliph. Thus it is said:

“Companions and friends of Imam followed their leader (Ali) in their conduct and behavior. And they behaved with the Caliphs like Ali did, during the tenure of the Caliphs as well as after that. The Second Caliph appointed Salman Farsi as governor of Madayn. Ammar Yasir was appointed as governor of Kufa. Others by order of Caliph were sent to battlefield...”64

We recommend the translation of Salman Farsi by Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili, New Edition,65 page 67-76 to our readers to acquaint themselves with facts. Here we just quote a few points:

Firstly, in all analyses especially regarding motive of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in his acceptance of participation is proved. This applies to his friends also. The informal presence in the scene for protection of religion but with this difference:

“Ali has the same attitude in practice also. He personally did not accept any official post from any Caliph. He did not accept command of army or governorship of a district. He also did not accept administration of Hajj or anything else.

If he had accepted any one of so many proposed offers, it was tantamount to withdrawal of demand of his right and in other words co-operation, while safeguarding unity of Islam was important to him.

Although he himself did not accept any office he did not restrain his friends or family members from accepting posts or offices whatever their desire was or whatever the offer was. He never viewed this as co-operation. In his view, it was never an approval to their Caliphate or his sanction for their occupying his seat.”66

“Another important point here is that government of the Caliph was not inclined to utilize services of friends of Ali except in few instances.

In this period, even companions of Prophet were ignored in political and government affairs.

The First Caliph has pointed out that the reason was their own unwillingness. The Second Caliph indicates the reason as restriction he had imposed on them from leaving Medina, i.e. their compulsory stay in Medina.

Perhaps the Caliph feared that if they left Medina since they could not be put under a check or control they might become a pivot of people’s attention and this might lead to problems for the regime.”67

In the same way: “During the reign of all three rulers, not one Hashemite was given any post.”68

On the basis of this such instances of co-operation can only be called such when there is willingness on both sides.

Otherwise reason must be searched behind policies of Caliphs.

“Ibn Shahar Aashob says about this: Umar appointed Salman as governor of Madayn. Umar’s motive by this act was to spoil Salman’s reputation and destroy his credibility if he happened to make a mistake. But Salman did not accept it before taking permission from Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a).

He went to Madayn and as long as he lived he remained there. He used to gather fuel wood in his outer gown. Half of which was his floor covering while the other half was his outer covering.”69

Before deceptive and political attitudes of the regime we cannot but say:

“In the instance some senior and sincere Companions took part in these battles it should be remembered that apparently they were unaware of the reality of the matter and their aim was only service to God by rendering service to Imam and Muslims. They were not knowing the view of the Infallible leaders regarding these battles. Because as we have seen it was openly endeavored that people do not come to know the opinion of Ali (‘a) and most probably the government institutions exercised force to send them to battlefronts.”70

In the same way:

“It is necessary to mention that the presence of Ali’s friends and followers in battles was not to support the regime and Caliphate. But it was to expand borders of Islam. They were absolutely sincere about it and their aim was not to gain spoils of war, such as fertile lands and rich cultivation,71 but it was only to gain God’s pleasure and spread Islam did they participate in these battles.”72

“There is no doubt that Ali and his sons had no share in any of these battles. People know the brilliant record of Ali and his bravery in battles. So it was not fear of death or his isolation.

The only reason was he did not like to be in service of one who was usurper of his Caliphate. His co-operation would have provided credibility to Governments of those who had occupied his place.

In addition to this his awareness about their motive in these territorial expansion was an impediment to his easy participation in those wars.

What could be said about Imam Ali (‘a) was that he did not refrain his associates and followers to participate in the campaigns...so that they may stop them from committing tyrannies and inhuman acts in contravention of teachings of Islam.”73

Conclusion

In a bird’s eye view, it can be said about the presence of some prominent associates of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the battles that:

1 - Some of these gentlemen were such that their presence minimized atrocities. Secondly, they could achieve the aims that their Imam had designed and sketched for them.

2 - Some other of these respectable gentlemen were present there because they were forced by the Caliphs due to hidden aims of the Caliphs in sending them to the battlefronts. They were actually exiled by the establishment on this pretext.

It was such an exile that it was hoped that they would not return alive from there.

3 - Dishonest hands of interpolators and falsifiers of historical realities have added the names of these persons in the list of fighters of the Caliphs in order to show that the regime of Caliphs was not usurped one and to grant it legitimacy.

The best of these lists are taken from Sunni sources. So perhaps this analysis may be the nearest to reality.

Conjecture Mentioned In Haft Aasmaan Magazine – A Reply To It

Conjecture Mentioned In Haft Aasmaan Magazine 74 – A Reply To It

Based on the premise that the Caliphs held consultations with Amirul Momineen (‘a) and also that His Eminence Ali (‘a) and his associates participated in the battles of this period the conjecture says:

“We start this short investigation of ours about the battles during the period of the Caliphs with three questions in this regard:

First question: What do you conclude by Ali’s help to Caliphs in many events and fate-making guidance at critical moments, besides, participation of Imam Hasan and Husayn in battles and Ali’s participation in some battles of Caliphs; and also his bearing of responsibilities in the government of the Caliphs? How do you justify them?”75

In continuation of these questions, the writer coins three examples. One of them relates to Abu Bakr’s seeking advice of Ali in the first year of his Caliphate about waging war against people of Kinda.

Ali advised him to stay in Medina and send others to combat. Similarly Ali advised Umar to not go himself in war against Romans and Iranians.76 From these cases the writer derives the following conclusion:

“For the sake of Allah! If Ali had your outlook about Caliphs’ wars he could not have given such useful advice to Umar.”77

The article writer in continuation of the first question as another example regarding consultation of the Caliphs with Amirul Momineen (‘a) further adds:

Many a times Amirul Momineen (‘a) accepted to substitute for Umar during his absence. Like when Umar had left to supervise the fronts, or he went to Jerusalem, Ali accepted to depute for Umar in Medina.”78

In continuation of these three instances, which he terms to be ‘many’ he mentions the instance of participation of his associates in the battles and concludes thus:

“These examples truly disprove the idea that Caliphs’ battles were a good pastime for people and a setback for progress of Islam.”

Can this be accepted that men of knowledge and experience and staunch belief like Salman, Ammar, Hujr bin Adi and Adi Hatim were not aware of facts and ignorant of Imam’s opinion?”79

In continuation of his writing and from that which he is influenced, he concludes:

“Imams of Ahlul Bayt (‘a) had a positive outlook to foreign wars. Some proofs of this are as follows:

A) Anxieties of Amirul Momineen (‘a) regarding Muslim battles during the period of the Caliphs and his concern for their victory in those battles and also his solving of problems for the Caliphs who were also leaders in those battles.

B) Participation of Hasan and Husayn in some wars

C) Participation of some first grade companions of Prophet like Salman, Ammar, Hujr bin Adi in the wars and their administration of the conquered districts. As these could not have been without permission of the Infallible Imam (‘a)...80”!81

They mostly quote these narrations in order to defend the battles of the period of Caliphs and the claim that the Imams (‘a) were having a positive outlook to foreign wars of Muslims. They are as follows:

Point 1 – Ali’s helps to Caliph in solving problems etc. while they were in fact also leaders of those wars!

Point 2 – Ali’s counsel and guidance to Caliphs in their most stringent circumstances. Also the fact that Amirul Momineen (‘a) never refused to heed their request for advice!

Point 3 – Anxieties of Amirul Momineen (‘a) regarding Muslim battles during the period of the Caliphs and his concern for their victory in those battles. Ali’s occupation of Umar’s seat in Medina in the days of battles!

Point 4 – Numerous instances of Hazrat Ali (‘a) substituting for Umar in Medina, and that also during the period of the battles!

Point 5 – Participation of Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in some battles of the Caliphs!

Point 6 – Participation of Hazrat Ali’s associates in some battles of the Caliphs supposing their being aware of the view of the Infallible Imam (‘a)!

Point 7 – Acceptance of responsibilities by Hazrat Ali’s associates in Caliphs’ government and their participation in administration of conquered regions by approval of Infallible Imam (‘a)!

Criticism and Scrutiny of Ali’s Positive Outlook to Battles

Criticism and Scrutiny of Ali’s Positive Outlook to Battles 82

A brief review of discussions that we have mentioned so far will prove the weakness and irrelevance of their arguments and that too with the claim:

“The positive outlook of Imams towards the battles”!

Because such types of conclusions depend on the introduction that we have criticized and scrutinized in the preceding chapters.

If our readers ponder on the results obtained by consultations of Caliphs with Ali and look back to its statistics the number of items or occasions will indicate that there is no such a thing except few occasions mentioned. Else, it is not a historical reality. Similarly, such guidance and connecting it to battles is a thing lacking sense as it is short of reason. It is only a product of their imagination and has no historical reality.

In the same way to say that since the Caliphs consulted Amirul Momineen (‘a) and he gave his advice and support it shows that he had a positive outlook for battles is wrong. Because to connect the instances of consultation with the battles is not proof enough that Ali (‘a) also was happy with their battles. Both the things are not having any connection at all.

Because even if it is proved that giving consultation to the Caliphs is proof of positive outlook of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to the battles as at that time they were rulers, before everything else it also included their usurpation of Caliphate of His Eminence (‘a) because at the time of seeking consultation also the Caliphs were rulers!

Similarly the same scrutinies show that there were only three instances of consultation in military matters and if we pay close attention it will clearly show the motives behind them that none of them had any connection with person of the Caliph or the actual battle.

The important thing to Amirul Momineen (‘a) was his anxiety that mistake must not be committed in those battles that could lead to total annihilation of Islam and complete domination of infidelity over Muslims.

Therefore from this aspect consultations had no connection with the person of the Caliph of the philosophy of wars in the view of His Eminence (‘a) that we should conclude from it that it shows positive outlook of Imams (‘a) to the battles.

When conditions demand vigilance because of war in which Islam has indulged itself the dire necessity becomes protection and safety of Islam. In such a case Imam would have an immediate and direct contact with the Caliph besides his advice for saving Muslims. But conditions differ. In reality, Umar had started war all by himself without consulting the Imam or taking his advice. The Caliph had done it by his own stubbornness.

In such conditions wherein there is no alternative but to send troops necessity dictates some provisionary measures to minimize danger which is certain or to avert uprooting blow from hitting Muslims and Islam. Therefore we see the Imam anxious and worried. Else he has no other reason. It was not and cannot be his approval of battles.

In other words, the wrong, rather insane decisions in military issues cause the Caliph’s life to be in the mortgage of Islam, i.e. protection of Islam. In such an event, there is no way out but to dispense the best advice for the sake of avoiding reversion to infidelity and saving religion from being wiped out completely. Imam Ali (‘a) did not pay any importance to Caliph’s life if that life was to bring back past ignorant days of idol worship. Ali had warned Umar: If the Caliph does not repent and does not give up the design to revert masses to the old days of infidelity and idol worship I will cut off his head.83

There is a great difference between the two attitudes of Imam Ali (‘a). According to his behavior we come to know that the life of Caliph in ordinary circumstances is not of any extra value or worth. Its value comes to worth only in case of its having an immediate link to Islam’s safety or that its end spells Islam’s end too. The dread of returning to infidelity of Muslim society or a likelihood of grip of idol worship upon the society makes a Caliph’s life worthy or attaches a corresponding worth to it.

Therefore consultation of Ali (‘a) in military affairs is not a sign of good relations. It does not establish any good terms on either side. So how can it be drawn in the sense of his approval of their Caliphate, or his acknowledgement of their government?

Thus it is said:

“A correct peep into events and a correct circumspection of Ali’s stand during 25 years of three Caliphs’ period and about 5 years of his own Caliphate leads us to conclude that Ali tried towards strengthening power of Muslims and pillars of Islam. And he did not fall short of efforts in this ground...”!84

However the battles – if Ali had a positive outlook towards them and had considered them holy, why he did not take part therein and beyond this why he rejected the office of commander that was proposed to him?

As for public deceiving claims that Ali was Umar’s deputy in Medina in itself is enough evidence to show their design to give a legal weight to their unlawful gain achieved at Saqifah. If we revise again what we analyzed earlier it would show clearly the motive of the writer of this article.

Participation of Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in battles of Caliphs

Participation of Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in battles of Caliphs 85

In this respect Allamah Ja’far Murtadha has given a detailed sketch of events in his book Analysis of political life of Imam Hasan Mujtaba, New Edition, that is translated (into Persian). While we recommend this book and stress on the necessity of its perusal we draw your attention to some points:

Introduction

“Before entering into the theme, we point to the matters in relation to the outlook of Imam Hasan and Husayn to government and battles of Caliphs.

1 – No researcher has a right to deny or accept before and after applying historical sources and divine texts. The reason is some books are written with bigotry, which results in deviation, perversion and allegations. This is not our word. Shaykh Shaltut, the last Mufti (jurisprudent) of Egypt and chancellor of Al-Azhar University, who himself by faith, was like author of Al-Milal wan-Nihal, says:

Most of those who have written books on Islamic sects and faiths were influenced by a profane spirit of bigotry. Therefore their writing have always added fuel to existing fire among sons of Ummah. These writers have only one point of view as though other angles are closed to them. They see their adversaries from one point. Opinion of a religion, which they oppose and belief of opposite side, which they do not concur with, is belittled and vilified by them. They attribute blames, which could result in mischief and enhance animosity. Neither any good nor any advantage has ever been in contents of their pages. A man of moderation or little justice should not form an opinion about faith on ground of their books. For every sect it is better that he obtains relative literature to be acquainted with the truth concerned.86 How deplorable it is that in our colleges etc. such books are standard sources. By this they teach the youth students of various lands, who are supposed to learn about true Shiaism without studying their books that are criticisms of such books like the third volume of Al-Ghadeer.

2 – As a matter of principle, attention must be paid that historical words are like a raw material in our hand. Historian here has nothing other than to cater or feed information. Now the thing that matters is reason. When performing scrutiny we should place the bits side by side to complete a form picture. So the consistency, coherence, and concordance should constitute a sense not a sense distorted. Its ugliness could incite disdain while its comeliness would encourage love. If not so how right could be distinguished from wrong?87”88

Criticism And Analysis

Similarly as we know, in no Shia or Sunni source there exists a single case to show the presence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in Caliphs’ battles. In the same way no Shia source mentions that Imams Hasan and Husayn (‘a) participated in territorial expansion of period of Caliphs, which itself is a matter worth contemplation.

But some Sunni historians have mentioned the presence of Imams Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in these battles. This has gradually resulted in renown of this matter and historians and even some contemporary Shia scholars89 and jurisprudents90 have put it in their writings.

Most Sunni writers, like Ibn Athir and Ibn Katheer have quoted Tabari (d. 310) and made him basis of their writing and used the material in their work – Similar to words of Tabari. We dwell here on a few of them:

Tabari in his Tarikh-e-Umam wal Mulook (History of Nations and Kings) writes:

“In the year 30, Saeed bin Aas along with few companions like Hasan and Husayn and some soldiers left Kufa for Khorasan.”91

The above quote is the first thing that Tabari has written. In addition to the lack of narrators’ credibility92 it is also fraught with more significant aspect which makes it difficult to accept the presence of Hasan and Husayn in the battles.

Tabari continues the narration about the victory of a town of Tabristan named Tamisa:

“Saeed bin Aas93 assured the inhabitants of town that not one of them would be killed but when the gates of the town opened, except for one he killed all the people.”94

In addition to this the second narration of also Tabari is also related from the same narrators with the difference that in repeating the names of those who took part in the victory of Tabristan the names of Hasan and Husayn are missing.

Another point worth nothing is the year. Sunni sources mention it 30 Hijra. This year coincides with Uthman’s Caliphate. So the presence is during Uthman’s Caliphate while the event has taken place in Umar’s Caliphate.

In other words, it is a period when Ali refused to even give any consultation for the battles. It is impossible that Ali should have agreed to send his sons in a bloody campaign of Bani Umayyah in Tabristan.

More interesting is that Ali restricted the presence of Hasan and Husayn in battle of Siffeen because he was much anxious about their safety.95

So how could he send the two reminders of Fatima (s.a.) to fight in Tabristan under the command of Bani Umayyah?!

On the basis of this and the analysis of Allamah Ja’far Murtadha it is not possibl to accept the presence of Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in the battles of Caliphs.

Scrutiny Of Participation Of Ali’s Companions In Battles And Government Of Caliphs

Scrutiny Of Participation Of Ali’s Companions In Battles And Government Of Caliphs 96

It is surprising that the writer of the article has no knowledge of companions with regard to facts and reality of matters and opinion of Imams about battles. This analysis is not based on authentic information but on probability and likelihood of participation of companions. This point is not noted.

Therefore, if this probability is not accepted, it cannot be a confirmation of battles. Supposing if companions of Amirul Momineen (‘a) attended on approval of Ali himself and were under no pressure, it is still not a ground to prove Imam Ali’s (‘a) positive outlook.

While it can be said that they might have taken part on ground of other productive reasons so this cannot be a proof of their approval. It could be that the presence of Imam’s friends could be a restriction for Caliph’s soldiers from plundering and pillaging conquered regions.

Now we would like to ask: what is the reason that all co-operations are confined to supporting their battles. Why they have simply passed by all reasons and causes?

If we accept positive outlook of Ali to battles, it will contradict his statement:

“A Muslim should not go to a holy war in company of one who has no belief in God’s command and does not carry God’s orders with regards to spoils of war.

If at all he goes and is killed, he has helped him in usurping our rights and shedding our blood. His death is a pagan’s death.”97

Are Battles Of Caliphs Worth Defending?

He who foments this conjecture while defending battles of Caliphs raises a question and reminds us the presence of Khalid bin Waleed among commanders of combat:

“What can you say about the appointment of this same Khalid bin Waleed by the Prophet himself?”98

Then he gives examples of his command in the days of Prophet99 by way of defending the record of Islamic army and Caliph’s battles. He writes:

“Actions of Muslims in battles and victories are well worth defending and their trifle mistakes can be overlooked. Such things are common in other places too. So instead of justifying piece by piece we should defend them as a whole.”!100

He continues:

“In wars of Prophet, Ali and Hasan also considerable shortcomings were seen on the part of the soldiers and men under their command.”!101

By quoting some examples of this he derives following conclusions:

“A group of eight or twelve men under command of Prophet’s cousin went on a campaign. They committed crimes such as killing two men in a sacred month without orders of the chief command…

The commander himself did not obey orders of Prophet. He killed a number of innocent men, probably Muslims;

When soldiers under the command of the likes of Ali (‘a) showed disobedience and looted the public treasury…

What can you expect from soldiers and commanders of Muslim armies that sometimes numbered 60,000?

…after all this can it still be said:

The fact is that the style of the battles of the Prophet was absolutely different from these territorial expansions of the Caliphs?102

As shall be seen in this section we shall try to prove that the style of battles of the Holy Prophet (S) was different from the battles of Caliphs and the attitude of their system. There does not exist any similarity between them. Because if men like Khalid bin Waleed were sent in Caliph’s wars, of course the Prophet too had sent Khalid to command the battles. But their wrongs were not overlooked and justified in Prophet’s days. The same person in the time of Caliphs wronged openly.

There is one main difference between battles of Caliphs and those of Prophet. It was divine permission. Caliphs did not have this. The Prophet, Ali and Hasan did not take a step without first getting God’s permission.

“On the basis of this those who have no permission from God regard themselves successors of Prophet. They are from viewpoint of Quran liars and most tyrannical of human beings. They deserve hardest punishments, even if they stand at the Mihraab or sit on a pulpit inviting people to virtue, piety and God-worship. Or they might have fought pagans and expanded Islamic borders and brought territories under the banner of Quran.”103

Secondly:

Another thing that is overlooked in these exaggerations is that they have omitted to say anything about the reaction of the Holy Prophet (S) and the Holy Imams (‘a) as what action they took when such heinous crimes were committed by their men. While in the case of the Caliphs we see that they took no action at all in response to the tyrannies committed by their men.

They have nicely quoted the incident of Khalid bin Waleed during the time of the Prophet how he wrought havoc on the Bani Jazima tribe104 but the writer has conveniently forgotten to mention what the Messenger of Allah (S) did in response to the misdoings of Khalid.

While historical testimonies show that when:

“News of Khalid’s crimes reached the Prophet, His Eminence was very angry and shocked. He raised his hands to the sky and said:

O, God! What Khalid has committed, I hate it and seek refuge with You from his doings. Khalid went to the Prophet and the Prophet was infuriated with him.

The Prophet immediately sent Ali to the tribe (victimized by Khalid) of Bani Jazima to compensate them their losses and pay blood money whatever they say to their satisfaction.

Prophet told Ali (‘a): Go to Bani Jazima, make amends for acts of ignorance and compensate for what Khalid has committed.

Ali paid their blood money and compensated for what Khalid had destroyed or drawn from them by force. Then finally Ali asked them whether there was anything left uncompensated or any blood unpaid. They said no. But for sake of correctness, whatever money was left with Ali he gave it to them telling them that perhaps something might have been forgotten.

Then he returned to the Prophet and reported all he had done. The Prophet appreciated his performance much and said: I had not given the command to Khalid. I had sent him only to invite them to Islam.

Some narrations say that the Prophet raised his hand toward the sky and said three times:

O, God! I seek immunity with You from whatever Khalid has done.”105

Regretfully not only have they omitted this reaction of the Prophet we don’t understand why the writer has not mentioned all these details? The writer does not miss to mention any wrongs or crimes committed by cousin of the Prophet or soldiers of Ali. But he so easily missed to write about the reactions of Prophet or Ali to these criminal actions, or what they did to redress and make amend for their crimes. Whether he mentions or misses, the truth finally does appear. The facts cannot be hidden for long as the clouds cannot hide the sun. He is only anxious to hold one dimension as if no other dimension exists. Only battles matter to him.

In the same way when he writes about the disobedience of soldiers under the command of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and their plunder of treasury, he has not mentioned that this took place in the absence of His Eminence (‘a). When Amirul Momineen (‘a) learnt of this he was shocked and punished the wrongdoers and announced his dissociation with this act of theirs. But the writer had not mentioned all this.106

Anyway he does not see such a big blunder committed by Khalid bin Waleed so he does not mention it. Let us remind him about Malik bin Nuwairah and his tribe which was the only quarter which did not acknowledge Abu Bakr’s rule as legitimate. So what did Khalid do?

When:

“Khalid killed Malik while he was saying that he was a Muslim. He kept Malik’s severed head under the cooking pot and the same night he slept with his widow...”107

After this terrible crime was committed by Khalid – commander and messenger of the First Caliph;

Abu Bakr said: “I will not stone him. He did Ijtihaad and made a mistake…I shall not sheathe the sword that God has drawn out.108”109

Although the reaction of the First Caliph in this regard was not limited to this, but as Tabari writes:

“Abu Bakr never punished any of his officers and soldiers. As if in his policy he did not believe in imposing any penalties on his officers and soldiers.”110

The Second Caliph also adopted the same policy with regard to his courtiers, friends, servants, associates and those who were around him. Umar too never punished any religious transgression. One instance is that of Mughaira bin Shoba whom Umar had appointed as governor of Basrah province in Iraq. He committed adultery, which makes one liable for stoning according to Islamic legislation. Umar did not obey God’s order in punishing Mughaira; but did a most interesting thing.

Not only the Second Caliph arrested the fourth witness in the case of Mughaira he also subjected the remaining three witnesses to religious punishment at the hands of Mughaira himself. The punishment, which he was supposed to execute against Mughaira because he was the criminal in question.111

After these two cases how can we expect the Caliphs to punish their men who had been instrumental in earning such important victories?!

Perhaps the article writer regards as trifle and frivolous and worth being overlooked even the crime that Khalid committed in the name of Islam and Islamic government with regard to Malik bin Nuwairah and his wife!112

But the Prophet never defended his relatives or staff or anyone associated to him in event of their being wrong or having done a wrong. He held them responsible for their mistakes; and imposed upon them punishment relative to that crime or crimes. But did the First and Second Caliph who were sitting in place of Prophet and were supposed to be in track of Prophet and tread the very path of the Prophet also do this? No. Rather they tried all means to cover the mistakes of their men and it also seen that:

Such crimes flourished because of support of Caliphs. If government officials become criminals and government was to turn a blind eye upon their crimes who remains there to check them?! Though these men had committed the most horrible crimes!!

Forced Participations Of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) In Caliphs’ Government

The last point worth noting at the end of the discussion regarding participation of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the government of the Caliphs is that in some instances the policy of the Caliphal regime was such that it should in any way compel His Eminence (‘a) to take some steps; for example, one case of applying force to enable strengthening of the foundation of Caliphate was as follows:

“Giving importance to congregation prayers and denouncing and even tagging those who do not attend their congregation as apostates.

Traditions censuring non-attendance of congregation leading to disunity of Muslims were emphasized. Necessity of being in the congregation as a right of the leadership of the Prophet (S) or the Imam was applied to themselves and even traditions in this regard were fabricated...”113

In such circumstances, not only the absence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in such customs would have given excuse to the regime to suppress him further;114 but more than that it would have destroyed all chances of Imam’s intervention in affairs of the regime aimed at guarding the religion of Islam.

While the Imam (‘a) was not in pursuit of such a kind of seclusion from Islamic society.

On the basis of this as has been proved so far there does not exist any evidence that some instances of Imam’s help and advice denote similarity of his aims with the Caliphs. Rather if we pay attention to the narrations we find that there is a wide gulf of difference between the policy aims of both the parties.

Such that they could be considered to be fundamental differences:

Amirul Momineen (‘a) never allowed that his attitudes be interpreted to be in favor of Caliphate and behavior of the Caliphs or that they may get an opportunity to take advantage of his attitude to help their deviated aims.

What the Imam (‘a) was in pursuit of is completely different to what the Caliphal regime aimed in obtaining his help and support.

In spite of the fact that wrong interpretations and analyses are propagated to the contrary.

Thus they claim:

“Other notable example of co-operation of Ali (‘a) is his participation in congregational prayers led by Abu Bakr.”!115

“On the basis of statements of modern Shia scholars like Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Hujjati, Amirul Momineen (‘a)…participated in their congregation prayers so much that people never noticed his absence in he society. And never imagined that Amirul Momineen Ali was heading in another direction! And that he had severed connection with the society ruled by the Caliphs.”!116

Although there is another analysis regarding this that in no way talks of any special meaning that could be derived from these actions of Imam (‘a) because it is believed that:

“In such circumstances going to the Masjid and being present there… was ordinary matter.117

This analysis also ultimately does not consider these steps to be construed as support to the Caliphs and their behavior.

“Presence of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in their gatherings was not voluntary and willful. His Eminence spent most of his time in the Prophet’s mosque and the same presence was followed by his presence in their assemblies.

On the basis of this His Eminence did not go there especially to attend their gatherings.”

Moreover, even if he attended their gatherings with intent it was with the purpose of forbidding evil, because they used to refer to His Eminence in many issues.118

On the basis of this a correct attitude and a firm connection with affairs of religion were the factors of his presence in their gatherings.”119

Historical documents and sources show that after Abu Bakr emerged from three-day seclusion120 there ensued another debate and discussion at the end of which Amirul Momineen (‘a) said in reply to another invitation of his associates:

“Then by Allah I did not enter the Masjid except like brother Moosa and Haroon when his companions said to him: go therefore you and your Lord, then fight you both, surely we will here sit down . (5:24)

And by Allah I do not enter except for the Ziarat of the Messenger of Allah (S) or to decide a case…”121

This narration clearly shows the limited aims of the presence of His Eminence (‘a) in the Masjid.

Did Amirul Momineen (‘a) Always Attend Caliphs’ Prayers?

Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani, in this respect has this to say:

“Regarding presence of Imam Ali (‘a) in Prayers of Caliphs this much can be said: Although it is well-rumored there is no basis to it. There are many matters and subjects, sometimes new and interesting – but without a root or a base to it. Although some have taken for granted these things as sure and certain, but we inspite of our search do not find any documentary proof to it. What document or evidence, valid or otherwise exists to establish that Ali was always present in their prayers?

The only thing that exists is the material written by Abu Saad Samani in his book Al-Ansaab that can be regarded as a miracle of Ali with regard to exposing scandals of opponents. We have narrated the case earlier.

The case in question might have occurred earlier to Ali’s acknowledgment to Abu Bakr’s authority. Or his (Ali’s) dissidence with Caliphs should have been already known to public. Else there seems no ground for their decision to kill Imam Ali (‘a).”122

The author in another place referring to the actual case says:

“So far we have not found any creditable source to bring this fact home to us that Imam Ali (‘a) was obliged to be present in Prayers of Abu Bakr or someone else. On the basis of what Samani’s book123 says:

Ali was present in Prayers of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had issued orders to Khalid earlier to kill Ali. Abu Bakr was still in Prayers he spoke to Khalid not to do what he had asked him to do.

Of course, speaking during Prayer invalidates it, but Abu Bakr regardless to this fact spoke. Because Samani’s is not a book of traditions to be particular for creditability.

And it is the will of God that this case reached to our knowledge although other authors tried to hide it.”124

Deviation In Narration From Shia Sources

It won’t be out of place to remind that in order to prove good relations between Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Caliphs they bring two narrations from books of Shia scholars and present them under the title: ‘Prayers with Caliphs’…

“Shaykh Hurr Amili writes in Wasaelush Shia, Kitabus Salaat, Pg. 534 that Imam (‘a) says: The Prophet of Allah (S) established relation with the Caliphs and Ali (‘a) performed Prayers behind them.

The great Shia scholar, Late Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin, writes in Answers to issues of Moosa Jarulla:

Prayer of Ali behind Abu Bakr and Umar was not a dissimulation. An Infallible Imam cannot worship Allah on a basis of dissimulation. On the other hand a Shia can pray behind a Sunni. His Prayers is correct – not wrong.”!125

In reply to this objection first we investigate the narration of Wasaelush Shia and make three notable points:

Point One

The statement that: The Prophet married two daughters of Caliphs and Ali prayed behind them is silent about the cause and description of how this was done. To find the conditions or circumstances governing these attitudes it is enough to look at titles under which Shia scholars have narrated the incidents.

Shaykh Hurr Amili has classified according to his own intelligence and understanding. In fact, the titles chosen by him show his insight in relation to contents of narrations.

It is interesting that the late Shaykh in his book mentions them under the heading: ‘Chapter of appreciability of attending Congregation Prayers in dissimulation behind one who is not qualified to lead prayers and standing with him in the first row’.

In the same way this narration is mentioned in Biharul Anwar126 and Mustadrak al-Wasael127 under following chapters:

• Chapter Of Marriage Of Polytheists, Infidels And Ahlul Bayt-Haters.

• Chapter of lawfulness of marrying the deprived, those who are doubtful but show themselves to be Muslims and detestability of giving a Shia lady to them in marriage.

Result Drawn From Contemplating On These Headings:

Firstly: The Imam (leader) of prayers in these narrations is not eligible to be followed, i.e. to pray behind him. Besides, from the angle of jurisprudence too he is not fit to the office of leading congregation prayers. He is neither a just man nor conditions in him qualify him to lead prayers for a congregation – no matter, small or large. In other words, the Imam of prayers is impaired with his followers of prayers. As such, to pray behind such a man can only be possible in dissimulation and the reward mentioned for this act is like the value of dissimulation and it has no connection with the leader of prayer.

Secondly: Narrators who have quoted these narrations in the section related to ‘The Prophet married’ in the discussion of marriage, have clearly kept veiled the entity and personality of wife and Imam of prayers. This reflects the conditions prevalent in society, which necessitated dissimulation.

Point Two

To understand a part of a narration we cannot ignore the wordings ahead or behind which would result in making the narration itself deficient.

Such a look would end in a contradictory comprehension in relation to its real meaning. Therefore we write a full extract from, Wasaelush Shia (the Aal al-Bait Print). The narration runs as follows:

“Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa, in his miscellaneous reports from Uthman bin Isa from Samma that he said:128 I asked him about their marriages and prayers behind them. He said: This is a difficult thing. You cannot do that. The Prophet married and Ali prayed behind them.”129

In the first part we read the tradition:

“It is a difficult thing that you are asked to do and you cannot cut off relations with them and are compelled to do it.”

This shows there was compulsion and coercion. One is forced to maintain relations with the opponents.

As if the main thing is to keep away but under compulsion one is to remain with them.

Point Three

If we ignore the beginning of this narration and suffice on the part, we conclude that the narration is silent with regard to conditions. To learn about the conditions prevailing at that time we have to seek some other report similar to these narrations.

This tradition is known as the ninth tradition and exists in Wasaelush Shia in the following wordings:

“Ali bin Ja’far says in his book narrating from his brother, Moosa bin Ja’far, that Hasan and Husayn prayed behind Marwan and we prayed along with them.”130

Attention is required here. In the contents it is not clear whether Hasan and Husayn, although praying in a group, prayed individually or prayed following the leader of prayers; i.e. Marwan. The contents do not disclose whether Ali too prayed with them. Also not obvious in the contents is whether Hasan and Husayn prayed in dissimulation or what the conditions were for their praying. However, in the contents there arise great many questions.

Therefore, we must search for narrations, which could open doors for us to see prayers, which our Imams performed with opponents and adversaries.

A salient difference exists between congregation prayers of Shias and other than Shia. The leaders of prayers (Imam of congregation) in Shia must be a just man, i.e. a man of probity and piety, virtue and having justice. This clearly proves that if a Shia prays behind an opponent of Shia faith, it does not mean that he has paid allegiance to him, his opinion, his school or his belief, because in this instance the condition of justice is cancelled.

Alongside this group of narrations, there are also traditions that clarify the matter further as follows:

“Ja’far bin Muhammad narrates from his father that Hasan and Husayn used to recite the opening chapter and other chapter when they prayed behind Imam of prayers.”131

This narration in fact tells us how the Infallible Imams prayed behind their opponents. This not only explains the method of prayers of Hasan and Husayn (‘a) in the narration about congregation prayer under the leadership of Marwan, it also tells us about the way Amirul Momineen (‘a) prayed behind the Caliphs.

On the other hand, Allamah Majlisi has this to say under the explanation of these narrations, which is worth nothing:

“When Imams prayed behind the leaders of tyranny they used to pray under dissimulation and they did not make an intention of following them. They used to recite as if independently; reciting the Surah Hamd and another Surah themselves.

On the other hand, it has been much stressed to attend congregation prayers. There are also traditions in this respect. It becomes compulsory in time of dissimulation.

But it is recommended that if possible one should pray at home and then join them in congregation and pray with them. And if not then it is obligatory to recite the opening chapter and another Surah oneself. And according to well known view in their leadership Qiraat is not cancelled. Rather in the book of Muntaha it is mentioned that: We do not have an opposing view in this matter, and in these prayers it is not required to recite the Hamd and Surah loudly and even if it is not possible to recite the Surah only Hamd is sufficient; although in my view it is obligatory to recite the Surah also and apparently in this matter there is no difference of opinions. If the Imam of congregation goes into Ruku (kneeling) before finishing the chapter he can finish the chapter in Ruku. Some say that reciting the Hamd and Surah is exempted in helplessness. In the same way in Tahzeeb this absolute view is mentioned and that this same prayer is valid. It is even said that: If one could not catch them in reciting the chapter, he can leave it altogether and join them in Ruku, and his prayer will be correct, but it is precautionary to later repeat even the Prayer in which one has recited Hamd and Surah in his heart, under dissimulation.”

The message of this outlook means to say the view of all jurisprudents of Imamiyah sect is at parity. From many aspects it is in the category of response given by Allamah Sharafuddin in his Answer to the Problems of Jarallah. We quote the actual text from his book. In the meantime, we must point out that Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has clearly and openly distorted the text. The facts and realities are sacrificed for the sake of so-called unity. It reflects a criminal tendency to distort authentic texts of well-known scholars of Imamiyah sect for their own benefits and ends.

According to the extract taken from his book of Answer to the Problems of Jarallah, Allamah Sharafuddin believes:

“Dissimulation in worship acts is that the Imam performs an action without intention that it be for proximity to God. It is only based on fear of a tyrant ruler.

And dissimulation in propagation of religion is that the Imam attributes a verdict to the Prophet while in fact, it is not from him. Although it is clear that dissimulation is never practiced by an Infallible Imam. And to consider narrations and worship acts of Imam as being dissimulation is to ridicule his infallibility and honesty.”132

In other words, Moosa Jarullah from this statement intends to inject the readers mind with belief that dissimulation is a possibility for an Imam that enables him the performance of a thing not for God’s sake but to find a scapegoat from detrimental surrounding imposed by a tyrant. In fact, it does not befit the Imam to stoop to such a category. If we accept this we have to deny his status of being infallible, which is irrecusable.

Jarallah after this marginal introduction in which he sets dissimulation to face infallibility of Imam prepares the minds of the readers to accept Imam’s actions on the basis of dissimulation proceeds further to say:

Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin (q.s.) says in response to these claims:

“Ali, peace be upon him and his sons, was punctual to perform prayers in their early hours. He was particular to perform prayers in congregation following the three Caliphs. He did this for the sake of God. He also prayed Friday prayers behind all three Caliphs seeking God’s satisfaction. His prayers were on the ground of his virtue and piety.”133

By this Jarallah aims to secure credibility and validity for Caliphs. He wants to establish legitimacy of their Caliphate because Ali prayed behind them. So they were men of justice and moral.

Jarallah represents dissimulation as an act of show and a trick. So considers prayers of Imam outside circle of worship and bereft of sincere intention to seek nearness to God. On the other hand he refers to prayers of Ali, which he performed behind three Caliphs as remote from dissimulation to establish his own motives and aims.

Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin against such propaganda says:

“I said: No, never. Ali prayed only to seek nearness with God. He prayed to impart what God has obliged him to do. His prayer behind them was only with aim to please God. We prayed following prayers of Imam and we sought nearness with God. We too have prayed several times behind Sunni Imam of prayers being too sincere to God. This is allowed in faith of Ahlul Bayt. The worshiper, though behind a Sunni, obtains the reward as he does while praying behind a Shia. One who knows our faith, is aware of the condition of justice for the leader of prayers. On the basis of this following a sinner and ignorant Shia was not allowed while these conditions do not exist for the leader of congregation in Sunni sect and they are allowed to follow anyone.”134

From the comments of Sharafuddin, we discover that he has corrected the specifications of dissimulation given by Jarallah. In the second place he (Sharafuddin) has explained dissimulation within domain of worship – and not as Jarallah describes it.

According to Sharafuddin, the act of dissimulation represents God’s command within teaching of faith. Sharafuddin regards dissimulation a means of proximity to God. As such he totally rejects the opinion of Jarallah with regard to dissimulation.

Finally, Sharafuddin impedes the way paved by Jarallah to benefit from dissimulation to gain legitimacy and legality for Caliphs. The man who leads prayers in Shia school must be just and of good reputation. This condition invalidates the endeavor of Jarallah. The leader of Prayer must not be profane or a man of no respect among the people. We shall deal with this subject in detail as “Justice is not a condition for a man who leads prayers in other than Shia sect.”

He has clearly displayed the worth of prayer behind a Shia and behind a Sunni individual (or Caliphs). The justice of Caliphs or they being men of justice and piety he puts to question and repudiates this quality in them. In the light of this description the reader becomes attentive that the act of Imam Ali (‘a) and his followers, Shias, does not give any support to them nor do they agree with them. Their dissidence is already concealed in their behavior.

In any case, firstly the response of Sharafuddin to the query of Jarallah is not personal inclination. It reflects the conditions prevalent in society. The direction of thought is an element at a zenith that cannot be neglected but necessarily to conceive the entailing developments.

Secondly: This answer of Sharafuddin refutes the conjecture, which Jarallah disseminates and not that it is to censure deviation of a tradition or taking a part of it for own benefit as it does not need an answer because later the truth is bound to become known.

Because such arrangement of texts is bound to put doubts in the minds of readers with regard to the behavior of Amirul Momineen (‘a) this group is more dangerous than that of unity-seekers. It is thus said:

“…His Eminence, Ali (‘a) was always with our chief, Abu Bakr and was present in all prayers behind him.”135

“Ali (‘a) himself also joined in Prayer with the Righteous Caliphs.”136

- 1. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 2. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 140.

- 3. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 38.

- 4. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 128.

- 5. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 104.

- 6. The later history shows that the reason why Caliph referred to Amr Aas was that the latter had a deep understanding of the personality of Amirul Momineen (‘a). The Qasida of Ghadeeriya also mentions this point.

- 7. Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 129.

- 8. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (1st Edition), Pg. 198; quoting from Futuh Ibn Athim, Vol. 1, Pg. 72.

- 9. Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 3, Pgs. 143-144.

- 10. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pgs. 84-85.

- 11. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 225.

- 12. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 85.

- 13. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 16.

- 14. Hasan Yusufyan: Article ‘Imam Ali wa Mukhaalifaan’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 6, Pg. 216.

- 15. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 227; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 78-79 and quoting from: Futuh al-Buldan of Balazari, Pg. 264.

- 16. Masoodi in Muruj az-Zahab (Vol. 2, Pgs. 309-310) has also explained that Uthman mediated in this matter but the Imam rejected the commandership.

- 17. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 43.

- 18. Muhammad Ali Taskhiri: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pg. 35.

- 19. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 225.

- 20. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 50.

- 21. Ibid. Pg. 51.

- 22. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 104.

- 23. Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 60.

- 24. Ibid. Pg. 61.

- 25. Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pg. 199.

- 26. Ibid. Pg. 199; quoting from: Shaykh Ali Ahmadi Miyanji.

- 27. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 102.

- 28. Ibid. Pg. 102.

- 29. Ibid. Pg. 102, Footnote 3.

- 30. Ibid. Pg. 103.

- 31. Ibid. Pg. 109.

- 32. Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pg. 199; quoting from Futuh Ibn Athim, Vol. 1, Pg. 72.

- 33. Ibid. Pg. 199; quoting from Futuh Ibn Athim, Vol. 1, Pg. 72.

- 34. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 4, Pg. 17.

- 35. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 110.

- 36. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pgs. 123-124.

- 37. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 282.

- 38. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 101.

- 39. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 54.

- 40. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 136-137; quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 3, Pgs. 21-22; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 31 & Pgs. 393-397.

- 41. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 120.

- 42. Ibid. Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 120.

- 43. Regarding Bayyat, Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1.

- 44. Rasool Ja’faryan: Hayat-e-Fikri O Siyasi-e-Imamaan-e-Shia (Intellectual and Political Life of Shia Imams), Pg. 53.

- 45. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 105-106.

- 46. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 47. Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 73.

- 48. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 14.

- 49. Ibid. Pg. 15.

- 50. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 171.

- 51. Ibid. Pgs. 14-15.

- 52. Ibid. Pg. 16.

- 53. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview in ‘Haft Aasmaan’ (Seven Skies) Magazine, Issues 9 & 10, Spring & Summer 80, Pg. 34.

- 54. Like the claim that: The Imam sent his dear son, Hasan Mujtaba to command forces in the area of hostilities. (Zainul Aabideen Qurbani: Ilal Peshraft wa Inhitaat-e-Muslimeen (Causes of Progress and Decadence of Muslims), Pg. 88).

- 55. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 137.

- 56. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (1st Edition), Pgs. 193-194.

- 57. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pgs. 58-59.

- 58. Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (1st Edition), Pg. 197.

- 59. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pg. 124.

- 60. Ibid. Pg. 130.

- 61. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 62. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pgs. 11-12.

- 63. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 293-294.

- 64. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pgs. 24-25.

- 65. This book is republished in 1382 in co-operation with Shirkat Chaap O Nashr Bainul Milal.

- 66. Ustad Murtadha Mutahhari: Imamat-o-Rahbari (Imamate and Leadership), Pgs. 20-21.

- 67. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 118.

- 68. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 282.

- 69. Sayyid Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 85; quoting from: Ad-Darajaat ar-Rafia (Elevated Positions), Pg. 215.

- 70. Ibid. Pg. 200.

- 71. ‘Iqta’ is in the meaning of ‘Qate-Zameeni’ a piece of land that a king allotted to a person so that he may earn his livelihood from it.

- 72. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 116.

- 73. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 290.

- 74. Since this reply needs an introduction the readers may once more refer to the prefaces in the second and third section of this book.

- 75. Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 225.

- 76. Refer: Tables in Section Two.

- 77. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 226.

- 78. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 228.

- 79. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 229.

- 80. Arguments of the writer continue.

- 81. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pgs. 231-232.

- 82. Criticism and scrutiny of Point 1, Conjecture 4.

- 83. Refer: Najmuddin Al-Askari: Ali wal Khulafa, Pg. 120; quoted from Manaqib Khwarizmi, Pg. 59.

- 84. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381.

- 85. Investigation of Point 5.

- 86. Quoted from: Asad Haider: Al-Imam as-Sadiq wa Mazahib-e-Arba, Vol. 6, Pgs. 391-392.

- 87. And also if an analysis is not logical we cannot accept it.

- 88. Abdullah Khanaqli Hamadani: Siyasat Imam Ali-o-Hasnain Dar Raabita Ba Hukoomat-o-Futuhaat Kholafa, Pgs. 121-122.

- 89. Refer: Baqir Sharif Qarashi, Hayat Imam Hasan bin Ali Life of Imam Hasan (‘a), Vol. 1, Pgs. 201-202.
Hashim Maroof Hasani: Seeratul Aaimma Ithna Ashar, Vol. 1, Pgs. 282-283 & Vol. 2, Pgs. 15-16.

- 90. Refer: Hasan Modarresi Tabatabai: Zameen Dar Fiqh-e-Islami.

- 91. Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 323.

- 92. For example: Books of Rijaal of Ahlul Sunnat by Ali bin Mujahid (a narrator of this report) has mentioned him to be a liar and a forger.
Refer: Midhi: Tahzeeb al-Kamaal, Pgs. 118-119; Dhahabi: Mizan al-Etedaal, Vol. 4, Pg. 72.

- 93. That is the commander of this army under whom were Imams Hasan and Husayn (‘a).

- 94. Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 324.

- 95. Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Mulook, Vol. 4, Pg. 44.

- 96. Scrutiny of objections 6-7.

- 97. Shaykh Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 11, Pg. 34.

- 98. Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 229.

- 99. Even supposing if this commandership is proved we can say:
The appointment of Khalid bin Waleed (who led forces against Islam in the battles of Uhad) shows the submission of Quraish to the power and domination of Islam.
This appointment has a deep effect on subduing the tribes who sided with the Meccans in their opposition to Islam.

- 100. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 235.

- 101. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 241.

- 102. Ibid. Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pgs. 225-226.

- 103. Refer: Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi: Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 170-171.

- 104. Refer: Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 244.

- 105. Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pgs. 171-172; quoting from: Al-Maghazi, Vol. 2, Pgs. 875-881; Sirah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 4, Pgs. 53-55; Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 2, Pgs. 147-148; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pgs. 66-68; Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Pgs. 255-256; Sirah Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, Pgs. 201-202.

- 106. Refer: Sayyid Muhammad Reza Tabatabai: Article quoted in Haft Aasmaan Magazine, Issue Nos. 12-13, Winter 80 & Spring 81, Pg. 244.

- 107. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 44.

- 108. Refer: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 322.

- 109. Ibid. Vol. 16, Pg. 45.

- 110. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 229.

- 111. Refer: Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345.

- 112. Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Section Six, Pgs. 81-94.

- 113. Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 354.

- 114. Thus Saad bin Ubadah only because he did not give Bayyat to the Caliph and did not participate in their gatherings he was first exiled to Syria and then killed.

- 115. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 124.

- 116. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni viewpoint), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 130.

- 117. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 20.

- 118. Scrutinies of Discourse 2 show that this was too less for the period of 25 years of the Caliphs’ rule.

- 119. Sayyid Murtadha Alamul Huda: Tanziyaul Anbiya (Translated by Ameer Salmani Raheemi), Pg. 227.

- 120. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article: Saqifah quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 458.

- 121. Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 81; Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 208.

- 122. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 223-224.

- 123. Samani: Al-Ansaab, Vol. 6, Pg. 170, Published by Muhammad Amin Samaj, Beirut, 1400 A.H..

- 124. Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pg 143.

- 125. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article: Nahjul Balagha and Wahdat-e-Islami, quoted in Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 26; Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pgs. 124-125.

- 126. Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 103, Pg. 375.

- 127. Muhaddith Noori: Mustadrak al-Wasael, Vol. 14, Pg. 440.

- 128. Mustadrak al-Wasael, Vol. 14, Pg. 144.

- 129. Shaykh Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 8, Pg. 301, Tr. 10.

- 130. Ibid. Vol. 8, Pg. 301, Tr. 9.

- 131. Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 88, Pg. 47, Tr. 5; quoting from: Qurbul Asnaad.

- 132. Allamah Sharafuddin: Ajooba Masail-e-Jarullah (Matbatul Irfan – Saida – 1953 A.D., 1373 A.H. 2nd Edition), Pg. 84.

- 133. Ibid. Pg. 86.

- 134. Ibid. Pg. 87.

- 135. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 11.

- 136. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 60.

Discourse 4: Scrutiny And Criticism Of Analyses Publicized In Respect Of Relations Between Caliphs And Amirul Momineen (‘a)

What Conjectures Are Presented In This Regard?

The last set of conjectures of unity-seekers with regard to relations between Caliphs and Imam Ali (‘a) targets good relations between the rulers and the House of the Prophet. They wish to establish that there existed good terms between Caliphs and the Prophet’s family.

These conjectures can be divided into two groups.

Group One

Conjectures are put into circulation to prove existence of good relations. But no historical evidence is presented. A general package of conjectures is set in the course of a rumor which says there existed good relations but does not show a proof.

Group Two

Conjectures that propagate existence of good relations on the basis of some fixed and widely known historical evidences or events.

So we shall take up the first group in brief and come down to the second group in our analysis and also refute some conjectures propagated in this group:

Generally to prove that there existed good and friendly relations between the three Caliphs and the House of the Prophet statements are issued as follows:

“What is fixed and settled is that all companions especially the Righteous Caliphs behaved with each other like brothers….”!1

“For 23 years in the lifetime of Prophet and 25 years after passing away of Prophet, Ali had friendly relations with Caliphs. He used to visit them in their houses and had family ties with them...”2

“Whether in the lifetime of the Prophet or after his death, Ali used to meet and visit the three Caliphs. He had contacts with them and family relations with them.”3

To analyse this claim we must first see individually the relations of each Caliph with the House of Divine Revelation during the lifetime and after passing away of Prophet.

Part A) Relations Of The First Caliph With The Family Of Revelation (‘a)

In this field, we see evidence:

“Abu Bakr Siddiq entertained a particular affection and a deep sincerity towards the family and relatives of Prophet.”4

To scrutinize this claim we must go back to the days the Prophet lived.

“If it is correct to say that when the Prophet was alive, there existed two political trends among the Muhajireen. Those who were after Caliphate did not have good relations with Ali. Since those days, the two old men – Abu Bakr and Umar – were not friendly with Ali. In biographical narrations there is no mention of any open enmity. Likewise, there is no mention to prove friendly relations between them and Ali.

Ayesha herself has confessed her enmity with Ali even in the lifetime of the Prophet. This could be a proof of enmity of the house of Abu Bakr with Ali – if Ayesha’s words are taken into consideration.

When Fatima died all the widows of the Prophet joined the mourning ceremonies of Bani Hashim, but Ayesha did not attend under excuse of illness. It is narrated from Ali that Ayesha even expressed her happiness at Fatima’s death.

Anyway, immediately after Abu Bakr became the Caliph the insistence of the Imam to prove his rights with relation to Caliphate became a reason for difficulty between their relations.”5

Perhaps the only memory of friendly relation with Abu Bakr could be this:

“Abu Bakr approached the Prophet to seek Fatima’s hand for Ali in marriage. Then the Prophet gives him the assignment to go to the market and buy for Fatima the dowry (that is the things needed for day-to-day life).”!6

“Abu Bakr approached the Prophet to seek Fatima’s hand for Ali in marriage. Then the Prophet gives him the assignment to go to the market and buy for Fatima the dowry (that is the things needed for day-to-day life)… Such relations or such services rendered were a common thing among companions of Prophet. Such services helped in bringing persons closer and making their friendship deeper.”!7

In reply we say:

“Firstly: It was the second year of Hijra when Ali married Hazrat Fatima (‘a). So this is far behind the developments of Saqifah and other events pertaining to Caliphate. As such, the claim is absolutely wrong.

Secondly: With regard to marriage of Ali and Zahra, Sunni scholars have written from reliable sources that the Prophet said: Indeed, the Almighty Allah has commanded me to give my daughter, Fatima in marriage to Ali (‘a).

It is when the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) had separately gone to him for the hand of Fatima for themselves and got a negative reply…with this detail that in the matter of this marriage that is directly commanded by God Almighty and that also after Abu Bakr and Umar both has been disappointed in their efforts to get the hand of Fatima (s.a.). You wonder whether these two persons or others had design that it should happen or not?”8

Some Shia sources narrate the development of seeking Zahra’s hand from the Prophet by those two as follows:

“One day Abu Bakr, Umar and Saad bin Maaz were sitting in the mosque of the Prophet. The conversation turned to the marriage of the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima (s.a.). Abu Bakr told Umar and Saad bin Maaz: Get up. Let us go to Ali and ask him to go to the Prophet to seek Zahra’s hand in marriage. If he is hindered by impecunious circumstances we will support him. So they managed to convince Ali to go…Abu Bakr and Umar sent His Eminence as a test9 and themselves waited for him outside. When Ali came out, they asked: what is the news? His Eminence said: His Eminence, the Messenger of Allah (S) has married his daughter Fatima to me and told me that God has performed our marriage in heaven…when Abu Bakr and his companions heard the news they pretended to be happy…”10

Another case pertaining to the relations of Abu Bakr with Amirul Momineen (‘a) goes back to the time of Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Yathrib and their halt at Quba; at that time:

“Abu Bakr insisted that they enter Medina as soon as possible but the Prophet said: I will not enter Medina unless my brother, I mean, the son of my mother, Ali and my daughter Fatima come and join me. So Abu Bakr went alone to Medina in Ali’s jealousy.”11

Historical sources mention that:

“The Prophet stayed in Quba for fifteen days until Ali arrived.

Abu Bakr told the Prophet: Ali may not come for a month! People of Medina are waiting for you!

The Prophet said: No, it is not so. He will come soon. I too shall not move unless my cousin, my brother, the dearest one among my family and one who risked his life to save me, comes.

This answer of the Prophet pained Abu Bakr. He left the Prophet at Quba and went to one of his friends’ house in Sunha locality in Quba.”12

To summarize these events we can say:

“Relations between Imam Ali (‘a) and Abu Bakr were cold and not worth mention.”13

Throughout the history of the Prophet, there is not one single incident to show existence of close, sincere, or intimate relations between Abu Bakr and the House of Divine Revelation. Now remains this claim to dwell upon:

“Warm and sincere relations existed between devotees of the Prophet during the rule of the First Caliph, the Siddiq Akbar…”14

To scrutinize this conjecture we have no way but to revert to the history of conduct and behavior of Abu Bakr toward the House of Divine Revelation. The scale of his affection and devotion to Ahlul Bayt can be epitomized in one or two historical documents.15

“Balazari writes in Al-Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

When Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, he ordered Umar to go and fetch Ali by utmost coercion and maximum pressure.

Ibn Abde Rabb writes in Al-Iqd al-Fareed:

Abu Bakr assigned Umar bin Khattab to go and pull those (means Ali) out of their house and bring them to him. And he told him: If they do not come out, fight them.”16

Therefore it can be said:

Anyway, immediately after Abu Bakr became the Caliph and the insistence of the Imam to prove his rights with relation to Caliphate became a reason for difficulty between their relations.

Attack on Fatima’s house, Fatima’s anger upon them, absence of permission for Abu Bakr and Umar to attend Fatima’s burial deepened the differences.”17

On the basis of this there never existed good relations during the days of the Prophet but immediately after Abu Bakr becoming the first Caliph, harsh and impolite relations started hurting the House where once descended angels and divine revelations. So now how can one say:

“Can one who has such intentions and beliefs about Zahra usurp her rights?”18

These conjectures are answered by History very clearly:

When Abu Bakr confiscated Fadak ignoring that it was personal property of Fatima and ignoring that it had been presented to Fatima by her father – the Prophet, Fatima demanded her right. He demanded witnesses to prove her claim. By so doing so he reflected that he had no belief in the Book of God – Quran in which the verse of purity clearly attests the impeccability and infallibility of Fatima and her sons – that is Ahlul Bayt. Then he rejected the witnesses. It was a plot to deprive her of her own wealth and property. It is clear that he did not want to give back Fadak to her as he did not relinquish the office of Caliphate to Ali. Ali comes forward in defense of Fatima, but Abu Bakr remains adamant. There is exchange of words between Imam Ali (‘a) and Abu Bakr.

“The Imam after saying this goes home with a heavy heart. A din of voices fills the air. People among themselves say Ali is right. Fatima is right. It is their right.

At that moment Abu Bakr goes to the pulpit and in order to silence the people says: O you people! What is this clamor for? You lend ear to everyone’s word. He (meaning Imam Ali) is a fox. The tail is his witness. He is after mischief. He himself is a malefic. He invites people to chaos. He seeks succor from a weak and takes help from women. He is like Umm Tahal, whose closest relatives were corrupt in her view.

How imperious was the Caliph at the power he held. How brazen faced he is and insulting to the Imam. We can gauge the manners and etiquette of the Caliph and how he debased one whose purity the verse of purification had acknowledged…

Ibn Abil Hadeed was very much surprised by all this insult done by the Caliph to Imam Ali (‘a) and asked his teacher Ja’far bin Yahya Basri whether the Caliph had meant Ali? His teacher replied: Yes, my son. It is so. Ruling a government was in question…

Yes! The fact is that the Caliphs did not spare anything to debase Ahlul Bayt (‘a) to establish their rule.”19

Here it must be asked, how inspite of evidence of forgery and false claims they still say:

“In the times of Siddiq and Farooq the financial rights were paid in full to the family of the Prophet.”20

Historical Reminder

In the end it is observed that:

“Some supporters of Abu Bakr have fabricated reports21 that Abu Bakr performed prayers on the coffin of Fatima. Fortunately, Ibn Hajar Asqalani has repudiated this as totally false.22”23

Historical documents show that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not present in Fatima’s burial. Thus Bukhari and Muslim (two famous hadith compilers of Ahlul Sunnat) in their books, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, have clearly stated:

“When she died, her husband, Ali buried her at night and did not allow Abu Bakr to come and pray on her bier.”24

“When she died, her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, buried her in night and did not allow Abu Bakr to come. And Ali prayed on her bier.”25

Examples Of Statements In Sunni Sources About Zahra’s Anger On Abu Bakr

Document No. 1

“Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle became angry and stopped speaking to him. This anger of hers on Abu Bakr continued till she left the world.”26

Document No. 2

“[In the matter of asking for her inheritance, Fadak and what remained of the Khums of the Khaiber booty] Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him and did not talk to him till she died.”27

Document No. 3

“Fatima severed relations with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him until the end of her life.”28

Document No. 4

“[In the matter of asking for her inheritance, Fadak and what remained of the Khums of the Khaiber booty] Fatima became angry on Abu Bakr, deserted him and never spoke him until she died.”29

Document No. 5

“[In the matter of asking for her inheritance] Fatima got angry and left Abu Bakr and remained severed with him until she passed away.”30

Document No. 6

“[In the matter of asking for her inheritance, Fadak and what remained of the Khums of the Khaiber booty] Fatima became angry upon Abu Bakr in that (matter).”31

Document No. 7

“She said, by God, I shall never talk to you two and she died and did never speak to the two of them.”32

In spite of the fact that it is against all historical proofs it is claimed:

“In authentic documents we do not trace any sign of referring to Caliphs by the term of enmity by Ali or Zahra or any of the Infallible Imams. Therefore, I conclude that they treated this as a difference between companions of Prophet during the total period of Caliphs and even during the period of Ali’s rule. And after that during the time of the Purified Imams (‘a).”!33

Aim Of Amirul Momineen (‘a) In Taking Over The Guardianship Of Muhammad Bin Abu Bakr?

Another conjecture concerns relations between the First Caliph and Ali with regard to Guardianship of the widow and his son Muhammad, after the death of Caliph. Their claim goes like this:

“His Eminence (‘a) showed close affection to Abu Bakr and after his death married his widow and brought up his son, Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr in his house…”!34

“Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr was very dear to Ali. He was brought up along with his own sons. During Caliphate of Ali, he was appointed as a governor of Egypt.”!35

Now to check this conjecture we must go to Asma Binte Umais, the widow of Abu Bakr and speak about her:

“Asma was Abu Bakr’s wife, but she mostly spent her time at the house of the son-in-law of the Prophet and the brother of her husband (Ali Ibn Abi Talib a.s.) and in the service of Fatima”36

In this regard it can be said:

“The lady, Asma Binte Umais was a good and virtuous lady. Her early life was as prosperous as the evening of her life. She was the wife of (brother of Ali) Ja’far bin Abi Talib. Finally, she became wife of Ali bin Abi Talib. In the middle for a few years, she was Abu Bakr’s wife. She gave birth to Muhammad son of Abu Bakr. But this great lady brought up Muhammad so purely that the impure sperm turned out a man adhering to the right path of Ali enriched by the love of Ahlul Bayt. This lady made Muhammad son of Ali though he was son of Abu Bakr. Indeed, beyond appreciations it is that when she witnesses Caliphate – the right of Ali – is usurped by her husband and the track perverted, she deserts the house of usurpation and comes to Fatima’s House of Divine Revelation. By this act, she displays her scorn to tyranny to Ali and Fatima and her fidelity and devotion to the Wilayat of Ali and Ahlul Bayt…”37

On the basis of this, marriage of Asma to Abu Bakr is worth pondering upon as:

“Cause and motive of this marriage – inspite of such a wide gulf between wife and husband in thoughts and moral tendencies – from the historical view has put this in the circle of ambiguity.”38

Therefore, the arguments of marriage of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with Asma and his Guardianship of her son, Muhammad should be sought in the personal excellence restricted to Asma herself – her support for the sanctity of Alawite Wilayat and Imamate can be nicely seen in the following steps of Asma:

“Abu Bakr, Umar and their advisory board were so much harassed and disturbed in their thoughts by the campaign of Ali that they were at a loss what to do. Their minds hurried this way and that and made hasty decisions only to be rescinded and made again. In a quandary, they dismissed what was determined. Finally, their thoughts collectively relaxed at one decision – to assassinate Ali. Abu Bakr’s wife Asma learnt of this plot. She immediately sent her maid to Fatima’s House and told her to recite the following verse as soon as she entered the house:

That is these people are plotting (conspiring) against you to kill you. So get out, I advise you. (Surah Qasas 28:20)

Similarly Asma told the maid: If they do not take the cue repeat the verse…”39

Likewise, the level of Muhammad (Asma’s son) with the family of his father, Abu Bakr can be judged very well by his stand in the battle of Jamal against his own sister, Ayesha. In this battle in support of his Imam, Muhammad drew his sword against his sister, Ayesha binte Abu Bakr. At the end of the battle Muhammad addressed Ayesha and introduced himself as follows:

“I am nearest in relation to you and at the same time your most ardent enemy…”40

Therefore Ali’s marriage with Asma after the death of Abu Bakr and guardianship of her son, Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr has no bearing on relations of His Eminence (‘a) with Abu Bakr. It is related to the moral quality of Asma herself as was a lady with belief in the Wilayat of Ali (‘a) and was blessed with affection for the House of the Prophet. Imam Ali (‘a) not only married her, he even took her son under his own training. Later this Muhammad – the son of Abu Bakr becomes a model among Shias to brighten the Shia school. His (Muhammad’s) son became a special associate of Imam Sajjad (‘a).41 His (Muhammad’s) daughter became the wife of Imam Baqir (‘a) and mother of Imam Sadiq (‘a).42

Now let us ask the reader himself – do these attributes of Asma binte Umais have any bearing on Abu Bakr, or do they bestow any virtue on Abu Bakr?

In spite, of these facts they still claim:

“But Imam Sajjad married the granddaughter of the First Caliph. The grand children of Imam Baqir’s mother were in fact the progeny of Abu Bakr. So such relation cannot be created or formed with an enemy.”!43

“Our Imams from Imam Baqir (‘a) onwards are the off springs of Abu Bakr’s daughter. Our Imams are closely related to the Caliphs.”!44

On the basis of what you have seen no scope remains for the claim that:

“Besides the co-operation of our chief, Ali with Hazrat Abu Bakr…these two pupils of the Prophet (Abu Bakr and Ali), like members of one family, were friendly and loving to each other.”!45

Part B) Relations Of The Second Caliph With The Family Of Revelation (‘a)

A complete claim exists in this field:

“The policy of Hazrat Umar in relation to Ahlul Bayt was composed of love and reverence.”46

“Umar’s look to Ali was full of love, concomitant with respect and honor.”!47

We must go back to the conduct and behavior of Umar towards the family of the Prophet. This will enable us to scrutinize the foregone claims. His looking to Ali with love accompanied by greatness and honor and the scale of his affection, reverence and his own humility towards the House of the Prophet can be epitomized within a few historical documents to see whether there is any veracity in it or this too is full of mendacity:

A Glance At Historical Documents

“Balazari writes in his book Al-Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

Umar went towards Fatima’s house holding a burning torch.

Fatima came behind the door (of her house) and said: O, son of Khattab! Is it you? Do you want to set the door of the house on fire over me?

Umar replied: Yes, this act will strengthen what your father has brought.

In Tarikh Tabari it is mentioned:

Umar said: I swear by God! I shall burn the house upon you; or you should come out of the house to pay allegiance to the Caliph.

Ibn Abde Rabb narrates in Al-Iqd Al-Fareed:

…Umar holding the burning torch proceeded towards Fatima’s house with an intention to set it on fire.

Fatima asked: O, son of Khattab! Have you brought fire to burn my house?

Umar answered: Yes. You too should join that which the Ummah has entered into (paying allegiance to Abu Bakr)…”48

Historical documents to prove Umar’s rough behavior and harsh attitude towards the House of Divine Revelation to obtain Ali’s allegiance to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate can be found in these three books: Attack on Fatima’s house, The Burning of Fatima’s house, Clear proof on Zahra’s martyrdom. Details mentioned in these books are all from Sunni sources of repute, which can well establish for you whether these claims are true or false. You can judge how far these words are correct. For instance,

“Umar always used to call Ali, light of the eyes.”!49

Similarly we have seen claims that:

“Companions of Saqifah, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and their supporters formed the government. Ali also cooperated with them to the end. Although he had difference of opinion with them, but he did not entertain enmity with them.”!50

“Inspite of his thinking that it was his right usurped as it is obvious in his speech known by the title of Shiqshiqya, he took shelter in fortitude. His fortitude was not just a show. He sincerely did not launch on enmity with companions of Prophet.”!51

“The relations of those great men (Caliphs) were brotherly and Islamic towards preserving the worth and regard of Islam. They were never at enmity.”!52

“Does this meaningful silence not reflect that His Eminence (‘a) did not want such a thing to be repeated?53 And that the fire of enmity should keep burning forever between him and the Caliphs. Especially during the reign of Second Caliph which was that of battles; that it should be overshadowed by personal feelings?”!54

Great many efforts are exerted to sketch the behavior of Ali with Caliphs under the friendly strokes of brush to paint a rosy picture of friendship and love. But a bird’s view on the events immediately after passing away of Prophet proves that there existed deep rancor and animosity between the Caliphs and Ahlul Bayt. Let us get acquainted with the behavior of Ali with Umar through these historical confessions of Umar himself.

The first example is a tradition mentioned in Sahih Muslim and History of Medina by Ibn Shubbeh:

“In these traditions the Second Caliph blames Ali and Abbas for calling the first and second Caliphs liars, sinners, pact-breakers, tricksters or tyrants and transgressors.”55

In the narration of Sahih Muslim it reads:

The Second Caliph addressed Ali and Abbas and said:

…When the Prophet passed away from the world, Abu Bakr said: After the Prophet I am the guardian of Muslims; you two (pointing to Ali and Abbas) came and demanded your inheritance. You (Abbas) for the heritage from the son of your brother and this Ali for the heritage of his wife from her father. Then Abu Bakr said: The Prophet had said: We are not inherited, what we leave is a charity, but you regarded him a liar, a sinner, a pact breaker, a betrayer and a cheater…”56

This is the text of Umar’s words regarding Ali’s view about Abu Bakr and himself:

“You both looked upon him as a liar, a sinner, usurper and a betrayer…and I…am associate of Abu Bakr. You two consider me a liar, a sinner, usurper and a betrayer…”

Similarly Ibn Shubbeh in his History of Medina, instead of liar, sinner, betrayer and cheat; has mentioned: oppressor and transgressor.”57

The actual text in his book is as follows:

“In this you considered Abu Bakr an oppressor a transgressor … and you two considered me an oppressor a transgressor…”

In summary it can be concluded:

“In this current discussion, there is one evidence, which cannot be irrecusable. Umar bin Khattab openly says that Ali bin Abi Talib and Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, regardless of their being Hashimi were considered prominent companions, regard Abu Bakr and Umar tyrants and cheats? Then how is it possible for one to claim that between Ahlul Bayt (‘a) and the Caliphs there existed love and friendship? On the other hand the enemy himself acknowledges that the Ahlul Bayt had such a negative view of them.

These texts clearly show that Ali bin Abi Talib and Abbas considered Abu Bakr and Umar to be tyrants, betrayers, liars, sinners and usurpers.

So how can there be friendship and love between Ahlul Bayt (‘a) and the Caliphs after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S)?

Thus if under the excuse of some fabricated narrations and those reported by other than Ahlul Bayt (‘a) someone is spreading love of enemies of Ahlul Bayt among the weak people, it should be known that the correctness of these traditions is lacking credibility.

With these texts please pay attention…a brief translation of these reports is that Ali bin Abi Talib and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib during the reign of Umar demanded the property of the Prophet pertaining to Khaiber and Fadak. Umar replies:

You claimed these properties from Abu Bakr too while you regarded him a liar, a sinner, a tyrant and a betrayer. Now I am the Caliph. You are making the same demand from me. Regarding me too, you have the same opinion – a liar, a sinner, a tyrant, a betrayer.

This statement, which contains a confession of the Caliph, is irrecusable because it is present in two most reputed Sunni books and their credibility cannot be doubted.58 So it is unlikely that one who is remote from bigotry and partiality would accept what the view of Bani Hashim and Ahlul Bayt was regarding the Caliphs.”59

Even though they claim:

“His Eminence (‘a) himself never insulted the Caliphs. On the contrary, on many occasions he has praised them.”60

But there is another historical document which says:

“In the incident of Umar’s travel to Syria he asked the Imam to accompany him in the journey but Imam (‘a) did not accept. Umar went to Ibn Abbas and complained: I have a complaint against your cousin, Ali. I asked him to come with me to Syria but he did not agree. I always see him unhappy. Why is he so?

Ibn Abbas replied: It is evident. You also know that. Umar said: Yes, it is because he could not get Caliphate.

Thus Imam (‘a) displayed to others his objection and anger for usurpation of Caliphate till the Caliph and the people became aware of it.”61

The exact words of Umar’s statement about Ali’s attitude towards him are these:

“I always find him angry towards me. What in your view is the cause of his anger?”

In view of these two reliable documents taken from Sunni source of repute and mentioned in a prestigious Sunni book, we leave the reader to himself judge the creditability of the claim. Such claims are in rife. But their creditability cannot stand before historical grounds that reflect a contradictory picture to us. For instance, a few more we quote here:

“Behavior and talk of Ali, according to contents of reliable books of both sects show that there never existed enmity etc. between him and Caliphs.”!62

“I challenge and even prove that Ali was not an enemy of the three Caliphs.”!63

“He had a mild behavior with this Caliph too. He kept behind his claim against this new Caliph.”!64

“So doubt vanished from both sides. The distance was reduced between the two. Trust came in with a new title in a new stage.”!65

“In the era of Caliphs, Ahlul Bayt of Prophet did what they could for the expansion of Islam and strength of Islamic government. They sacrificed money and life. This itself is proof and indication of their satisfaction and love.”!66

“When Hazrat Umar died, his body was laid under a shroud. I was present there. Imam Ali (‘a) came. He removed the shroud from his body. He said: Abu Hafs! May God immerse you in His Mercy. I swear by God, after the Prophet of God, there is no one except you that I was friend of. How I wish that the scroll of your deeds were mine. I could have met God with the scroll of your deeds.”!67

“Ali behaved mildly and politely with Caliphs’ government.”!68

“On the basis of this those who think that since they follow Ali they must declare immunity from Caliphs should prove whether he also did Tabarra with them, so that we must also do so.”!69

At the end of this chapter we draw your attention to another historical document:

“When Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) returned home after [from six-member Shura committee] he told the family of Abdul Muttalib:

“O family of Abdul Muttalib! Your relatives are at animosity with you after passing away of Prophet like their enmity with the Prophet in his life. If your people attain power they will never take you into consultation.

By God, they will not turn to the Truth but by sword.”

The narrator says: Abdullah Ibn Umar was also present there and he heard all what His Eminence said as he was entering. Then he entered and said: “O Abal Hasan, do you want to create enmity between your relatives and them?

Ali said: “Woe be on you! Keep Quiet! By God, if your father had not been there and he had not behaved with me in this manner all his life, the son of Affan (Uthman) and son of Auf (Abdur Rahman) would never have challenged me.

At that moment Abdullah bin Umar got up and went away.”70

Conclusion

It is an established fact of history and an acknowledged reality that relations between Ali and Umar were so dark and clouded that it became a useful element to create false narrations within its folds to deviate from reality and pervert the trend to irrigate the farm of their benefits and harvest the crop to their advantage.

For instance: Dishonest historians, pretending to be in pursuit of truth, have fabricated various narrations concerning the second Bay’at of Ali to Abu Bakr. They have tried to instill in the minds of readers a false concept that Ali paid allegiance to Abu Bakr with utmost willingness and desire after the death of his wife, Zahra.71

Great Sunni scholars like Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari has acknowledged the hatred and disdain that existed between Ali and Umar. He narrates that Ali sent a message to Abu Bakr telling him:

“Come to me but another person should not come with you - Umar too tried to evade meeting Ali…”72

Did the Second Caliph desire Ali to be Caliph after him?

Here is one more conjecture that propagates good ties between Amirul Momineen (‘a) and the Second Caliph:

“Umar in his last speech commits his tongue to a language that he never uttered throughout his life in any of his speeches. In this speech, he opens the window of his heart. In fact, it is his will: “O believers! Faithful ones! I recommend you to select Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) for Caliphate after me.”!73

Before we scrutinize this conjecture, one thing seems necessary to be pointed out here. Efforts are rife to establish a conjecture alongside this by claiming that:

“Another fact which must not be ignored is that Ali after passing away of Prophet did not succeed to Caliphate. Similarly, after the martyrdom of Umar too did not succeed to Caliphate.”!74

The mind of the reader is from the usurpation of the Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (‘a).

While the behavior of the Second Caliph whether in the lifetime of the Prophet in the event of the pen and ink or whether in instituting a six-member committee of Shura is openly opposed to this claim:

“Umar by vesting special powers to Abul Rahman bin Auf weakened Ali’s position and strengthened Uthman’s hand; and indirectly ensured Uthman’s appointment to the office. He was already aware of qualities in Ali besides his knowledge that it was Ali’s right. He neglected all this. In short, he closed the way for Ali. He, in fact, formed that committee with the intention that Ali could be sidelined. The committee itself was an obstacle in the way of Ali to Caliphate.”75

“Umar made the committee to appease the rancor of Quraish against Bani Hashim progeny. Whether Bani Teem have cooperated with Ali if Ali were opponent of their Shaykh (i.e. chief)?

The rancor of Umayyad dynasty was never to be mitigated which had taken root since years long. Their fathers had fed their children with this rancor. Therefore, one generation carried it to the next. Umar was in his deathbed. However, he designed a plot so shrewdly that he brought forward all the motives of national prejudices against Ali. It was clear that the victim was Ali. Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood writes: For the Quraish the principle of age of ignorance was a fixed policy. Further, a staunch attachment to tribal bigotry to limits of worship was their characteristic. Members of the committee were from such a tribe with such an outlook. To break down family unity of Bani Hashim was an ambition and aspiration of Quraish. Umar performed his duty, which was to isolate Caliphate from Bani Hashim. This was already in efforts since passing away of Prophet.

There was no possibility left for Ali to win the contest. Whoever heard the names of the members of this committee became sure of the choice of Uthman.”76

“How Umar introduced each member of Shura, highlighting their defects and kept them in line with Ali? His motive is clear. He wanted that the man most deserving to this office and most competent to this job should not come to power.”77

In the same way Umar told Ibn Abbas while speaking to him about Ali refusing him to accompany to Syria unveiling the matter of the pen and paper by confessing that:

“The Prophet during his sickness wanted to introduce Ali as his successor but I prevented him.”78

On another occasion the Second Caliph says:

“His Eminence, during his illness decided to clarify this matter but I prevented him.”79

These confessions nicely disclose the plots he had designed one after another to hinder the way for Ali to attain the Caliphate.

In conclusion, it can be said:

“Not only the behavior of Caliphs was not good with Ali (‘a) and Ali did not cooperate with him whole-heartedly, the behavior of Abu Bakr towards him was very cold and Umar did not give any office to Bani Hashim.

On the contrary, he used to give key positions to Bani Umayyah and by reviving practices and malice of the days of ignorance he compelled Ali (‘a) to isolation.

In a gathering Umar told Saeed bin Aas, an Umayyad, in the presence of Ali: You are looking at me as if I have killed your father, while it was Ali who killed your father.”80

Allamah Al-Askari has narrated the aforesaid conversation in his book Saqifah. His source is Tabaqaat of Ibn Saad (Vol. 5, Pg. 20-22). His analysis is this:

“It shows his provoking and inciting the people against Ali. Do such words of Umar not excite and provoke to revenge the blood of their nearest ones shed by Ali? Does it not encourage Saeed to take revenge of his father’s death by assassinating Ali?”81

Scrutiny of the legend of Second Caliph’s Marriage with Umm Kulthum

This is an issue of dispute in Islamic societies. It has indulged many into doubt and several others into confusion while to some it is setting out in search of an answer in a barren desert of uncertainty hit time to time by confounding sands of surmise. It is the marriage of Umm Kulthum, daughter of Amirul Momineen (‘a), with Umar.

It is obvious that the aim by this claim is to obtain specific results. For instance, such as:

A) The Prosperity In The Next World For Umar By Means Of This Marriage

Thus it is alleged:

“It is a well-known fact that devotion to Ahlul Bayt exercises a positive influence on the fate of man – in this world and the next. Overall, love for the progeny of Prophet ensures mercies from heaven and Divine pardon besides the favorable attention of the Prophet himself. In the year 17 A.H. Umar decided to strengthen his ties with Ali. So with this motive he sought the hand of Umm Kulthum from her father, Ali, in marriage.”!82

B) Immunity Of Second Caliph About Crimes Committed Against Ahlul Bayt (‘a)

“Hazrat Ali (‘a) has given his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. So Ali was the father-in-law and Hazrat Fatima, mother-in-law of Umar. According to this things told about Hazrat Umar have no foundation according to the belief of Sunni Muslims. They are only to create disunity and nothing else.”!83

“His Eminence, Ali (‘a) gave his daughter in marriage to Umar and Hazrat Umar was Ali’s son-in-law…therefore all the supposed enmities are also invalidated.”!84

“But Hazrat Ali (‘a) had family ties with them. Ali was Umar’s father-in-law. Umar was Ali’s son-in-law. How can such close ties be established between enemies?”!85

C) Suggestion Of Umar Having Gained The Satisfaction Of Ahlul Bayt Particularly That Of Hazrat Zahra (S.A.)

Thus it is alleged:

“Umm Kulthum daughter of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) and Fatima Zahra was married to Umar. This could not have been possible without consent of Imam Hasan and Husayn and her sister Zainab and especially her mother, Fatima.”!86

D) Baraat, A Principle Of Shia Belief Now Is Put Under Question

Thus it is alleged:

“If Ali had approved abuse and insult of the Caliphs how he could have given his daughter in marriage to Umar?”!87

E) Enmity And Rancor Of Umar Towards Ali Is Covered

Thus it is alleged:

“Hazrat Umar loved Hazrat Ali and wanted to express it. So by his marriage to Umm Kulthum he perfected his attachment with Ali.”!88

F) To Show Relations Between Ali And Umar To Be Friendly

Thus it is alleged:

“Hazrat Ali gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. This is the greatest proof of intimacy and sincerity among them. Ali had a great regard for Umar.”!89

“The friendship between the two was so strong that Ali gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Farooq-e-Aazam.”!90

G) Giving Legitimacy To Umar’s Caliphate And Distancing It From The Term Of Usurpation

Hence it is said:

“If Umar had not been the rightful Caliph and had usurped Caliphate from Ali and had opposed the words of Prophet, it would not have been right for Ali to give Umm Kulthum, his daughter from Fatima, in marriage to him.”!91

“Even if we suppose that Ali inspite of his unwillingness acknowledged Umar’s Caliphate, how did he give his daughter from Hazrat Zahra in marriage to Umar?”!92

Therefore this matter is of much importance to be checked for authenticity, because it is being used for their undue benefit and made a pretext under which every stain is washed to the extent that Umar too was infallible like them. So it must be made clarified.

Before the scrutiny we would like to clarify a point.

Can Only Marriage With Bin Hashim Be A Proof Of Friendship?

A marriage can take place with several and different motives and it can be for convenience also.

“Such marriages are many in history.

For instance, marriage by force took place between Hajjaj bin Yusuf the Thaqafi93 and the daughter of Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib. Later it resulted in insult to the family of Bani Hashim. The great jurisprudent of Sunni sect, Ibn Jauzi, writes in his book Akhbaar Al-Nisa:

“Hajjaj married the daughter of Abdullah bin Ja’far. When she entered, he saw her crying – tears flowing down her cheeks. He asked what made her to cry. She said, “The honor getting low and the low getting to honor.”94

Can marriage wipe out all those crimes and atrocities he (Hajjaj) committed against Ahlul Bayt because of this marriage? The crimes of Hajjaj that are so plenty in history can they be forgotten and forgiven?”95

Criticism And Investigation

Outlook of Shia scholars with regards to the marriage of Umm Kulthum with Umar can be classified into two categories:

View Of The First Category Of Shia Scholars

This category of scholars in which there is Shaykh Mufeed also, totally denies occurrence of such a marriage. They consider it a lie and a thing fabricated by enemies of Ahlul Bayt.

We quote here the reasoning of the great scholar and authority Shaykh Mufeed, while answering the issue in his book Masail Sirwiya:

“First: It is not creditable that Ali gave his daughter to Umar because such a thing is not proved. Its narrator is Zubair bin Bakr. This narrator does not enjoy a good reputation in the circle of researchers. They do not give any credit to his words.

He is known of being inimical to Ali. For this reason, he is not trustworthy. In his narrations, he is always against Bani Hashim.

Second: The tradition he has narrated contradicts itself in its wordings as there is no uniformity in it.96 For example, in one place he says Ali gave his daughter in marriage to Umar. In another place, he says that Abbas (Ali’s uncle) took this job upon his own responsibility. Somewhere he says that no marriage codes took place that his marriage did not happen. Somewhere he says that there was coercion and threats from the side of Umar. Somewhere else he says that the marriage was the result of sacrifice. Some narrators say that the fruit of this marriage was a son named Zaid. But some narrators claim that Umar was assassinated before he could go into a nuptial bed with her. Some claim that Zaid had sons while some say that he was killed and he had no son.

There is another group that says that Zaid was killed with his mother while some say that the mother outlived her son.

So such narrations by such a narrator with so many contrasts and contradictions within itself are far from any credibility. It cannot be authentic to believe or to accept. The very creation of such a tradition, which is from its very start is rife with differences, cannot be taken into account.”97

“There is difference in this marriage. Shaykh Mufeed has opened an independent chapter for this subject.98

Shaykh Mufeed, Abu Sahl Naubakhti and Ibn Shahar Aashob – all these scholars have denied this marriage. Muhammad Ali Dokhaiyyal in his article: ‘Life of Umm Kulthum’ has discussed the subject and rejected its authority as well as its authenticity. Shaykh Muhammad Jawad Balaghi (d. 1325 Hijra) has denied this marriage in his lengthy article. Besides these, scholars like Abdul Razzaq Mukarram and Sayyid Nasir Husayn of India (Lucknow) died in 1361 Hijra have flatly repudiated this marriage from its base.99”100

The confusion that surrounds this subject had impelled Ali Muhammad Dokhaiyyal to dwell on the matter in his book Elaam al-Nisa. He writes:

“Among the imaginary marriages which are not few, there is this marriage too – daughter of Ali, Umm Kulthum, with Umar.

Ibn Abdul Barr and Ibn Hajar and others mention that Umar asked Ali to give her to him.

Ali told Umar that she was still a girl.

Umar said that he would keep her better than others.

Ali told him that he would send her to him. If he is pleased he (Ali) would tie her in marriage to him. Ali gave a cloth to Umm Kulthum and sent her to Umar. Ali told her to tell Umar that the cloth was the same he had told about. She did the same.

Umar said her to tell her father that he was satisfied. Then Umar touched her leg, uncovering it.

She was shocked and asked him why he was doing that. She also told him if he were not Lord of Believers, she would have knocked down his nose. She came out of the house, went to her house and asked her father why he sent her to a bad old man.

Ali told her: Daughter, he is your husband.” (Ref: Al-Isaabah Vol. 4, Pg. 492; Al Istiab Pg. 490)”101

He has similarly said:

“All who have mentioned this marriage have said: Her marriage took place after assassination of Umar with Aun. Aun was killed in the battle of Tustar102 in the year seventeen Hijra during Umar’s Caliphate. So it cannot be accepted that he103 married her104 after Aun was killed?...

The most surprising thing, which has incited a group to believe this story, is the statement of Ibn Abdul Barr. He says Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib is the same who married Umm Kulthum after the death of Umar.

While in the same book he says:

Aun bin Ja’far and his brother Muhammad bin Ja’far were martyred in Tustar district (of Iran). He knows that the battle of Tustar happened during Umar’s Caliphate seven years before his death. Considering the date how can we give credit to this story?”105

Therefore, it can be said:

A group of Sunni sect denies the narrations of marriage because they consider it an insult to Umar as the narrations mention his behavior with Umm Kulthum. Therefore, to safeguard Umar’s honor they have no way but to deny it.

Why this rumor gained currency?

Possibly a question may arise, why the rumor has gained such currency among the people if this marriage had not taken place?

“This tradition became famous as Abu Muhammad Hasan bin Yahya has quoted it in his in his book, Al-Nasab. So many people think that since he is a Shia, the report must be correct even though he has taken it from Zubair bin Bukkar.”106

Similarly it can be said in reply to this question that:

“Perhaps this misunderstanding arose because one of the wives of Umar was named Umm Kulthum. She was the mother of Ubaidullah bin Umar and daughter of Jurul Khizayia. Since her name was the same as that Ali’s daughter they took for granted that she was Ali’s daughter. When the name Umm Kulthum is mentioned, the minds naturally go to Ali’s daughter. For this reason many have believed that Ali’s daughter was Umar’s wife.

On the other hand there was another Umm Kulthum also, who was Abu Bakr’s daughter and Ayesha’s sister. Umar had approached Abu Bakr to marry his daughter – Umm Kulthum. This story is like this:

Abul Faraj Isfahani (a Sunni scholar) writes in his book, Aghani107 (songs): A man from Quraish asked Umar bin Khattab why he should not marry Umm Kulthum, daughter of Abu Bakr to preserve his position after Abu Bakr’s death and creep into his family through this link.

Umar appreciated the proposal and asked him to go to Ayesha and inform her and bring back the answer.

So he did. Ayesha pretended as if she received the news with happiness and got pleased by it. The man left her. Immediately after his exit Mughaira bin Shoba came to Ayesha and found her out of sorts. He inquired for the reason and she told him the whole story and added that her sister was still too young for him and that she wanted her to live in ease, calm, peace and a mild life better than Umar. What she meant was that Umar could not provide her such a life when he himself was a harsh and rough man.

Mughaira told her to leave the matter to him and that he would resolve the difficulty. Then Mughaira went to Umar and told him: Be happy and be father of many sons. I have heard you want to enter into Abu Bakr’s family through marriage with his daughter Umm Kulthum? Umar answered: Yes, so it is.

Mughaira said that it was good but in one way it was not because she was just a girl, too young and he was too rough and harsh. Occasions would rise when he would treat her roughly and beat her and she would cry calling her father, so all would remember Abu Bakr. Your harsh behavior would remind all of them to remember Abu Bakr afresh. This will increase agony for them. As such the marriage, because of you, would turn into a daily calamity.

Umar asked: Where have you been that you are speaking in such a tone? Mughaira answered: I am coming from Ayesha just now. Umar said: I swear by God and I witness that they (the House of Abu Bakr) do not like me. So you assured them that you will make me forgo the matter and ignore it. Well, it does not matter. I too desire her no more.

Mughaira again rushed to Ayesha and informed her of the fresh development, which he had promised her to do. Umar too did not contact them in this respect.

So dear readers! You might have grasped that there were two women by the name of Umm Kulthum (mother of Ubaidullah bin Umar and daughter of Abu Bakr). So people mistake her to be Ali’s daughter.”108

Outlook Of Second Category Of Shia Scholars

Many Shia scholars believe that the marriage took place because of force and coercion. Umar used to threaten Ali, time and again. Ali had no way but to agree to this marriage.

The second category of scholars falls back upon proofs to establish what they have concluded. We refer to few of them here:

“The late Kulaini, the great traditionist, has written in his book Kafi: Hisham bin Salim narrates on the authority of Imam Ja’far (the sixth Imam). The story is such:

When Umar went to Ali to seek Umm Kulthum’s hand in marriage, Ali told him that she was still a young girl. Then Umar went to the uncle of Ali – Abbas who asked him what was wrong with him (Umar)?

Abbas asked: What is the matter?

Umar replied: I had been to your nephew, Ali, to seek his daughter’s hand. He refused me. But you know I will pour out the well of Zam-Zam until it goes dry.109 I shall destroy all of you. I shall keep no honor, no distinction for any of you. I shall produce two witnesses that Ali has committed theft. Then I’ll cut off his hand.

Abbas went to Ali and informed him about the whole matter and asked Ali to leave the matter to him. Ali did so.110

There is another narration in this text:

Umar sent Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib to Ali with an errand to get Umm Kulthum in marriage for Umar. Abbas went and conveyed to him the message. Ali refused.

Abbas hurried back to Umar and informed him of Ali’s refusal.

Umar said to Abbas: By God! If he (Ali) does not accept and persists in his refusal I would kill him.111

Abbas again went back to Ali and reported Umar’s words.

But Ali repeated his negative answer.

Abbas informed Umar accordingly. Umar asked Abbas to come to mosque on Friday and hear directly what he says there and see for himself that he (Umar) could kill Ali if he wished.

Abbas went to the mosque on Friday. Umar after finishing prayers and the lectures told the audience that in the town, there exists a companion of Prophet who has committed fornication inspite of his married status. Of course, no one knew it except himself. So, what do you say?

All from various directions cried: If the Caliph knows, it suffices. No need for others to know it.112 The judgment of God must be carried out against that fornicator.

After this Umar told Abbas to go and tell Ali what he heard and saw. He further added that if Ali still persists tomorrow he would announce among the people that the person he meant yesterday was Ali.113

Abbas went to Ali and narrated the details.

Ali said: Yes, these things are easy to him. He can do that without any hesitation and fear of God.

But Abbas told him if he could not agree, to leave the matter to him and he told Ali not to interfere. Then he (Abbas) went to Umar and told him that he would do what he wanted.

Umar called for a public meeting and announced: This is Abbas – uncle of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ali has given the responsibility of his daughter (Umm Kulthum) to his uncle, Abbas to perform her marriage with me. Thus, he informed the people about the marriage that was to take place in the near future. He wanted to make the event familiar to them. He was circumspect to avoid the thing from being a surprise. After a period of time Abbas performed the marriage.114”115

This story is also narrated in a different version, which runs thus:

“Umar at the close of his Friday’s last sermon said: O, people! If the Caliph knows that one of you has committed fornication, but he has no witness at all; what would you do?

They said: The word of Caliph is an authority to us. If he commands, we shall stone the fornicator.

So Umar fell silent and came down from the pulpit and taking Abbas to a corner whispered into his ear: Did you see?

Abbas said: Yes.

Umar: By God! If Ali persists on his refusal I would tell the people tomorrow that the man I spoke about was Ali. Execute him!116”117

On the basis of this it should be said:

On the strength of evidences and proofs it is an established fact that the marriage took place by force – neither Ali nor Umm Kulthum herself was in agreement with this marriage.

Umar had always fulfilled his desire by every means possible ignoring whether it was prohibited or the means adopted were good and reasonable. Whether God would be pleased or it would incur His displeasure, it least mattered to him. What mattered was to satisfy himself. Therefore, he took advantage of his position as Caliph and the power, which was at his disposal, so he always swore because he was sure of his act and therefore nothing stood to hold him to see whether his desire would incur God’s wrath or please Him.

For the house where descended angels with God’s Messages such tyranny was rather too much. To see these things against the sacred house of prophethood saddens one and foments such feelings that one does not know what to call such a tyranny.

So, we can guess how lonely Ali was! And how alone he was among all those cruelties and tyrannies! Not a friend to him to hear his heart and be consolation for him. Not one there that he could trust him in his agony. Not an intimate one to wipe away his tears. As such he was the first victim of Islam. So, it is not odd that he used to lean into the well and complain of his pain to draw comfort and ease. How the agonies crushed his breast; and how bitter was the aggression upon him. Imam Sadiq (the sixth Imam) says:

“This was a sanctity taken from us by force.”118

The point worth noting here is what when late Shaykh Hurr Amili wanted to write about this marriage in his book Wasaelush Shia, he first put it under the title: ‘Permission for marriage with enemy under need and dissimulation’.

Regarding the threats of Caliph it can be said:

“Shia and Sunni are unanimous that Umar threatened Ali when he persisted on his refusal to demand of Umar to marry Umm Kulthum. Sunni scholars have mentioned it in Tabaqaat Ibn Saad, Zurriat al-Tahera of Dolabi and Majma az-Zawaid.119 In these two books the cane of Umar120 is referred to.”121

Therefore, if there be truth in this marriage and there be a reality in the whole incident then it is self-evident and self-explanatory about Ali’s victimization. Further, it explains the political conditions ruling over Muslims at that time. It shows a plot designed by Ayesha, Umar and Amr Aas for this marriage to take place.

“Many Sunni sources, including Tabari, have written: Umar bin Khattab first went to Abu Bakr to ask his daughter, Umm Kulthum, in marriage. Ayesha conveyed this errand to her sister (Umm Kulthum). Umm Kulthum in reply said that she has no business with him.

Ayesha asked her whether she (Umm Kulthum) did not like the Lord of the believers.

In reply, Umm Kulthum said: Yes, I don’t like him. He is harsh and hard to live with. Beside he has a negative behavior and a very rough conduct with women.

Ayesha sent a message to Amr Aas to inform him about the development.

Amr Aas assured her that he would adjust the things. Then he went to Umar bin Khattab and told him that he had heard news, which he wished from God to be not true.

Umar asked what it was.

Then he replied that he had heard that he (Umar) had asked for Abu Bakr’s daughter in marriage.

Umar said: Yes. Do you think me not fit to her or she to me?

Amr Aas told Umar (bin Khattab): No, nothing of these two. Umm Kulthum is too young. She is treated by her sister (Ayesha) too mildly and affectionately. On the other hand you are extremely hard and harsh. We are afraid of you because we cannot change any of your habits…I will direct you to one better than her. Another Umm Kulthum – daughter of Ali bin Abi Talib.122“123

Opinion Of Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani

Opinion of Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani 124

“As of scrutiny and research on the second matter, that is marriage of Umm Kulthum, daughter of His Eminence, Amirul Momineen (‘a) with Umar bin Khattab, it must be said:

This case must be seen from two angles:

1 – Through Shia narrations.

2 – Through Sunni narrations.

Through Shia narrations, this story rests within three narrations.125 Let us see one by one:

Umar bin Khattab asked Ali bin Abi Talib to give his last daughter, Umm Kulthum, to him in marriage. Because she was young and not ready for marriage, he rejected the request. After some days, Umar met Abbas – uncle of the Prophet. He asked Abbas if there was any stain on his morals or conduct to be cause for disgrace? Abbas was amazed and asked what the matter was. Umar told him the story then threatened Abbas and all bin Hashim in these words: I swear by God that I will destroy the greatness and glory of Bani Hashim in Mecca and Medina from its root. Further, I will provide two witnesses to the effect that Ali has committed theft and carry on him the punishment prescribed in Quran.

Abbas came to Ali and told him what he was told by Umar and requested Ali to leave the task of Umm Kulthum’s marriage to him. Ali finally accepted his uncle’s proposal. Then Abbas performed the marriage of Umm Kulthum with Umar bin Khattab. When Umar was assassinated, Ali brought his daughter home.

When Imam Sadiq was asked about this marriage he answered: That honorable lady was usurped from us.126

That which comes to hand from Shia sources is nothing other than what is narrated.

Prior to entering into the scrutiny of Sunni narrations, there is a point to consider:

The marriage in question is not mentioned in any of the six books, called Sihah which are of much credit among Sunni sect; besides this marriage is not found in any other book of repute also.

It is questionable as to why this marriage which is important to them because it goes a great deal to provide a confirmation to Caliphate of their Caliphs must be ignored or overlooked, what must be the reason for it?

But it appears that this marriage is bereft of a base. Else, a marriage of so much importance is not possible to be missed by the pen of historians. In our belief (as Shia), the issue of Imamate and Caliphate cannot be established by an event such as this if at all this could be true, though the case is doubtful.

After this reminder it can be said that:

This incident by adversaries is narrated in their books in two ways:

(1) Way of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet.127

(2) Way other than of Ahlul Bayt.128

Within these two ways, scholars and researchers have treated this incident too lightly. They have not given any creditability to it.

The conclusion is that: firstly, there appears confusion and disturbance in its text, which goes to make it discreditable and shaky. Furthermore, there appears no proof of Ali’s willingness to this marriage. Those who have narrated this marriage have not mentioned any source relative to it, or a tradition to support its occurrence!!

Secondly: In all their other books which have mentioned this event through both channels there is no tradition on which they have unanimity on its authenticity.

Thirdly: There is a strange anxiety in the text of this story. Researchers have rejected many incidents if they find anxiety far less than which exists in this event in question.129

On the basis of which is mentioned above it will be said:

So, nothing comes to hand from these narrations. According to its phase from Shia narrations if we accept its having taken place, still it is liable to a deeper search. What is possible to lay hand upon is:

Umar might have contacted Ali with the request of marriage. It could be possible that he might have insisted upon his request besides having had repeated his contacts either by visits or approaches. Such persistence on his part could be the reason for change in answer of Ali from negative to positive. In addition to this, there is another element very much efficacious in this matter. Umar had sought the good offices of Aqeel (Ali’s brother) and Abbas (Ali’s uncle). So, their recommendation in between seems to have played an effective role in making Ali change his stand. By the way, Sunni sources attest that Aqeel was in between. In a long run, Umar succeeded in creating compelling conditions for Ali. Finally, there remained no option for Ali but to accept. His acceptance was not on his will or inclination. Finally, he personally does not undertake the responsibility. This is further proof of his unwillingness. He leaves the whole matter to his uncle (Abbas). What could be a better sign of his unwillingness? Abbas performed the marriage and took the girl, Umm Kulthum, to Umar’s house. After this marriage, a short span of time passed and Umar was killed. Then Ali brought back his daughter home.

However, this is the reality of the case and the background of the story. Now in view of this background and conditions that prevailed, and the circumstances created for Ali, how could it be said that close, friendly and brotherly relations existed between Ali and Umar? A dim ray of reason will suffice to see the facts, a little wisdom is enough to judge the things and a least justice is sufficient to speak the truth far from selfish aims or motives. Shias have repeatedly stated with proof, logic and reason that Caliphate is a divine office as Prophethood. As we cannot appoint or choose a Prophet we cannot choose or appoint a successor to him. It is entirely and absolutely God’s choice and His responsibility. The office of Imamate is sacred and too holy and too high. To occupy this office, everyone, no matter whatever his qualifications, is impaired unless he is chosen by God and is infallible.

Regarding this marriage, the narrations have several stories within a story to weave such as the children born of this marriage and the material used to enhance the beauty of the bride. All these things are false and without a ground.

If at all, anything could be proved it could be this:

The insistence of Umar bin Khattab and nothing else. There is a tradition of the Prophet that: on the Day of Judgment there will not remain any family link or relation except that of mine.130 To explain, the ties or links with the Prophet, that is the birth ties or links by birth that originate from the Prophet are not breakable. So Umar wanted to attain a family link with Fatima (daughter of the Prophet) and through her enter into family ties with the person of the Prophet to get that distinction.

But the real motive of Umar by this marriage is something else.

This motive can be found in the narration of Muhammad bin Idrees Shafei: When Hajjaj bin Yusuf Thaqafi married the daughter of Abdullah bin Ja’far. Khalid bin Yazid bin Muawiyah told Abdul Malik Marwan: Have you left Hajjaj on his own on this matter of marriage. Abdul Malik replied: Yes, is there any problem in it? Khalid said: By God, this creates great many problems. Abdul Malik asked how and why. Khalid in answer said: By God! O Caliph! From the time I married the widow (daughter of Zubair) all the hatred and rancor that was rankling in my breast towards Zubair has now gone. By these words of Khalid, Abdul Malik woke up as if he was in sleep. He immediately wrote to Hajjaj to divorce the daughter of Abdullah. Hajjaj did the same. In other words, he obeyed the orders of Caliph.131

Of course, there is no doubt that through marriage one enters into other’s families and new links come into being. Also, the inimical relation changes into friendly by a marriage. But the ill-will that Bani Umayyah had towards Bani Hashim always instigated them towards revenge instead of friendship. Bani Umayyah clan was always waiting for any opportunity to cool the fire of hatred burning in their hearts generation after generation.

But the case differed with Umar bin Khattab. By entering into the clan of Bani Hashim and particularly the House of Ali through this newly created link he wanted to change public opinion. He thought that the painful occurrence of Saqifah and his atrocious conduct along with his colleagues that entailed against Zahra could be redressed in the public view.”132

How Many Daughters Did Ali Have Named Umm Kulthum?

Allamah Muhammad Taqi Shushtari writes in Qamoos ar-Rijaal:133

“Umm Kulthum – Daughter of Ali:

It is said about her that her title was Zainab al-Sughra. This is drawn from the book Irshad.134About the number of children of Ali, the book mentions:

Zainab al-Sughra known as Umm Kulthum was the daughter of Ali and Zahra.

However, Shaykh Mufeed writes that she was daughter of Ali. Her mother was not Zahra but a slave girl.

Supposing, if Zahra’s second daughter’s name was Zainab then in such a case the lady in question would have been called Zainab al-Osta not al-Sughra.

In fact, from other’s narrations we can conclude that Umm Kulthum had no other name.

About the daughters of Zahra, it is mentioned they were Zainab al-Kubra and Umm Kulthum al-Kubra.

The other two girls, Zainab al-Sughra and Umm Kulthum al Sughra, were from a slave lady. Refer to the book Nasab Quraish by Musayyab al-Zubairi and also Tarikh Tabari.

In brief, Ali had two daughters by name Umm Kulthum. Umm Kulthum Kubra from Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) and Umm Kulthum Sughra from slave wife and for none of the two are there distinctive names.135”136

Probably due to the mistakes of historians the biography and marriage of these two Umm Kulthums are mixed and it led to the false conclusion that Umar bin Khattab married Umm Kulthum the elder, daughter of Hazrat Fatima. (s.a.).

Outlook Of Ayatullah Marashi Najafi

“Another research is that Umm Kulthum, wife of Umar bin Khattab, was the daughter of Abu Bakr and Asma Binte Umais. Asma was wife of Ja’far bin Abi Talib. When Ja’far was martyred, Abu Bakr married her. When Abu Bakr died, she became wife of Ali bin Abi Talib. Umm Kulthum was an infant. When Asma came to Ali’s house this infant baby too came along with her mother.

This girl too like her brother, Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, was brought up by Ali. Ali treated her as his own daughter like Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. Later this girl, Umm Kulthum, was married to Umar bin Khattab.

In reply to the inquiry, the great Ayatullah Marashi Najafi answered and the reply of the great Ayatullah Marashi Najafi bears date Rabi al-Awwal 1407 and signed by him under his stamp. The text is as follows:

Umm Kulthum was a stepdaughter of Ali. She was married to Umar bin Khattab. She was daughter of Asma Binte Umais and Abu Bakr. When Abu Bakr died she, (Umm Kulthum) was just an infant. She came to Ali’s house when her mother (Asma) married Ali. She was brought up by Ali as his own daughter. Later she was married to Umar. Mostly she was known as Ali’s daughter…”137

Another Analysis About The Marriage Of Umm Kulthum With Umar

Historical documents point to the meeting of two shrewd and astute personalities of Arab with Umar bin Khattab.138 They were Amr bin Aas and Mughaira bin Shoba. In this meeting, two points are detected:

A) Those two exerted their efforts to prevail Umar bin Khattab to forego his lust for Umm Kulthum to marry her; because she was yet too young and besides she was under immediate guardianship of her sister, Ayesha.139 There are signs one could predict thereon the social, political and periodical conditions that prevailed which necessitated relations with the house of Abu Bakr.

B) Ayesha after the death of her father (Abu Bakr) took the responsibility (the leadership) of her father’s party and its supporters. She was strongly against this marriage.

Her opposition was to the extent that necessitated her to ask help from Mughaira and Amr Aas:

We refer to the outlook of the Great Ayatullah Sayyid Shahabbuddin Marashi Najafi140 with regard to important points here: Asma Binte Umais (wife of Abu Bakr) had a daughter by Abu Bakr by name Umm Kulthum. This much is enough to guess that Umar wanted to marry any daughter of Abu Bakr. Amr Aas detected the intention of Umar bin Khattab. He (Amr Aas) wanted to foil the hidden desire of Umar bin Khattab. So he tried in this regard.141 Amr Aas persuaded Umar bin Khattab to ignore her and to go after her sister, Umm Kulthum, brought up by Ali and known among people as his (Ali’s) own daughter. Besides, he incited him that he would not cross Ayesha because she had no truck or any business with her.142 This appeased and assuaged Umar to a great extent. So he immediately shifted from this girl to that. The attraction to Umar was the possibility of establishing a family link with Bani Hashim. Again, in this marriage he foresaw a possibility of deviating public opinion as they would see him in a different pose in a family tie with Ali and Zahra. This new relation would make them forget his harsh behavior towards Ali and Zahra and his attack on Zahra’s house. So this marriage was a source of moral advantage to him. And also by forcing Amirul Momineen (‘a) to this marriage he would be able to insult and weaken him.143

Part C) Relations of the Third Caliph with the House of Divine Revelation

The claim of friendly relations between Amirul Momineen (‘a) and the Third Caliph is related to the historical event connected with public attack on Uthman.

So they say:

“People used to come to Ali and complain to him about Uthman. And Ali conveyed people’s complaints to Uthman as he maintained a respectful position among the Caliphs.”144

A Glance At Historical Documents

History indicates that relations between Amirul Momineen (‘a) and Uthman were not friendly as claimed, because we see that:

“Saeed bin Musayyab says: I have seen a very harsh exchange of words between Ali and Uthman. It went to the extent that Uthman lifted the whip on Ali. I came in between and pacified them.”145

In the case of Abu Dharr’s exile by Uthman, Ali went to see him and bid him goodbye inspite of the fact that Uthman had prohibited it.

“People came to Ali and reported that Uthman was angry by his send off to Abu Dharr. Ali did not care and said: His anger is like the anger of a horse from its reins.

At night when Uthman censured Ali for his farewell to Abu Dharr inspite of his orders to the contrary.

Ali answered him absolutely emphatically: We shall not follow you in that which is against truth and pleasure of God.146

Similarly in the same matter Uthman said to Amirul Momineen (‘a):

“By God, to me you are not above Marwan!”147

Again in the case of Ali’s support to Ammar Yasir:

“A harsh exchange of words took place between the two, which turned into a fracas. Little by little, Uthman could not tolerate the brawl. He said to Ali: You too deserve to be expelled.148

The reason for such rows was that:

“Uthman considered Imam’s support to victims and oppressed as a direct war and an insult to him. Imam knew this but he did not forgo helping the victims.”149

So the difference went along between the two and became too serious that Uthman told him:

“I don’t know whether I like to see you dead or alive.”150

Then during the general riots:

“Marwan and Bani Umayyah used to whisper into the ears of Uthman that Ali was instigating the people against the Caliph to riot. The Egyptians were under Ali’s directions. Therefore Uthman expelled Ali to Yanbuh.”151

While this expulsion, in spite of historical evidences in support of it, has been distorted as follows:

“As Ali was more sympathetic to Uthman because of the riots against him, Uthman sent message to Ali to go out of Medina. Ali did so and this happened several times.”152

There is another example of such conduct towards Ali:

“Uthman too followed his predecessor Umar and prohibited the Hajj. Ali objected because openly it was wrong. He stood against Caliph in word and deed. He took such a strong stand that his assassination seemed too likely to occur at the hands of Caliph’s men.

Abdullah bin Zubair says: A man from Damascus said, which I will never forget: See the man how he argues with the lord of believers (Uthman). By God, I will kill him if the Caliph orders me.”153

There is another incident. Ali objected to the Caliph when Uthman wanted to buy endowed land.

“The argument became a dispute the dispute became a noisy quarrel and the quarrel enraged Caliph so much that he lifted the whip upon Ali and Ali raised the cane which was in his hand. Prophet’s uncle, Abbas came in between and calmed the two.”154

- 1. Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pg. 36.

- 2. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article quoted in Kitab Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pg. 131; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 52.

- 3. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 125.

- 4. Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 35.

- 5. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 13.

- 6. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article quoted in Kitab Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pg. 131; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 52.

- 7. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 125.

- 8. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 171-173.

- 9. Because to anyone who proposed for the hand of Zahra, the Prophet gave a negative reply due to divine orders .

- 10. Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pgs. 202-208.

- 11. Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 179.

- 12. Muhammad Husayn Rajabi: Article ‘Imam Ali Dar Ahd-e-Payambar’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali, Vol. 8, Pgs. 161-162; quoting from: Rasooli Mahallati: Zindigani Amirul Momineen (‘a), Pg. 86.

- 13. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 16.

- 14. Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 30.

- 15. For sources of attack on Fatima’s house refer to Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Muhaziraat Fil Iteqaadaat, Vol. 2, Mazloomiyat-e-Zahra; Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani: Al-Hujjat al-Gharra Alaa Shahadat-e-Zahra; Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima; Husayn Ghaib Gholami: Ahraaq-e-Bait-e-Fatima (Arabic) and also: Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Sajjad: Aatish Ba Khana-e-Wahy; Masoodpoor Sayyid Aaqai: Hoor Dar Aatish (Persian).

- 16. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 109-111.

- 17. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 13.

- 18. Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 35.

- 19. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 202-203; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 214.

- 20. Khuda Raham Lakzai: Article quoted in Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 5, Spring 80, Pg. 33.

- 21. Abdul Aziz Nomani in the article: ‘Fatima Zahra Az Wiladat Ta Afsana-e-Shahadat’ quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, (Issue No. 3, Autumn 79) This forged tradition is quoted from the book, Al-Muntazim fee Tarikh al-Umam wal-Mulook (written by Ibn Jauzi), Vol. 4, Pg. 96, considering it authentic.

- 22. Quoting from: Lisan al-Mizan, Vol. 3, Pg. 334.

- 23. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pg. 106.

- 24. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Tradition no. 3913.

- 25. Muslim bin Hajjaj Nishapuri: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3304.

- 26. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Tradition no. 2862.

- 27. Ibid. Tradition no. 3913.

- 28. Ibid. Tradition no. 6230.

- 29. Muslim bin Hajjaj Nishapuri: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3304.

- 30. Ahmad Hanbal: Musnad Ahmad, Tradition no. 25.

- 31. Ibid. Tradition no. 52.

- 32. Muhammad bin Isa bin Zahhak Sulami: Sunan Tirmidhi, Tradition no. 1534.

- 33. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 34. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 80.

- 35. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 27.

- 36. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 201.

- 37. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar; Translator’s Footnote: Dr. Sayyid Hasan Iftikharzadeh Sabzawari, Pg. 773.

- 38. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 201.

- 39. Muhammad Baqir Ansari: - Sayyid Hasan Rajai: Asrar-e-Fadak, Pgs. 59-60.

- 40. Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 210.

- 41. Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pg. 870.

- 42. Imam Ja’far Sadiq (‘a) said: “My mother was from those who had brought faith and were pious and righteous and Allah loves who are righteous.” (Allamah Majlisi: Jila al-Uyoon, Pg. 870).

- 43. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 44. Ibid. Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62.

- 45. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 82, Pg. 12.

- 46. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 110.

- 47. Ibid. Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 87.

- 48. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 109-110.

- 49. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 81.

- 50. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62.

- 51. Ibid. Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 52. Ibid. Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 30, Bahman 1379.

- 53. It is the events that unfolded after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

- 54. Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381.

- 55. Reza Salmani: Rawabit Mutaqabil Kholafa Ba Khandaan-e-Payambar, Pg. 42.

- 56. Ibid. Pg. 41, quoting from: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, Kitabul Jihad was Sayr, Bab Hukmul Fee, Pg. 27, Tr. 49 (3302), Mausisa-e-Izuddin.

- 57. Ibid. Pgs. 41-42; quoting from: Tarikhul Madina, Vol. 1, Pgs. 202-204, Daar al-Fikr.

- 58. Sahih Muslim, No. 3302.

- 59. Husayn Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) wa Rumuz-e-Hadith-e-Fadak, Pgs. 52-59.

- 60. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379.

- 61. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 227; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 78-79.

- 62. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381.

- 63. Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381.

- 64. Ibrahim Baizoon (Translated by Ali Asghar Muhammadi Seejaani): Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 40.

- 65. Ibid. Rafataar Shinashi Imam Ali (‘a) Dar Aaina-e-Tareekh (Understanding the stand of Imam Ali in the Mirror of History) (1st Edition), 1379, Pg. 42.

- 66. Abdul Hameed Ismail Zahi: Appeal quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 9, Spring 81, Pg. 71.

- 67. Abdullah Futuhi: Article in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 78.

- 68. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 69. Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 9, Khordad 1381.

- 70. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 9, Pg. 54.

- 71. Refer: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 4, Section 1.

- 72. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Pg. 253, Kitabul Maghazi, Chap. 155, Ghazwa-e-Khaiber, Tradition no. 704 (3913).

- 73. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 82.

- 74. Ibid. Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 80.

- 75. Jalal Darikhsha: Mawaaze Siyasi Hazrat Ali Dar Qibal Mukhalifeen (Political stands of Ali against opponents), Pg. 59.

- 76. Ibid. Pgs. 59-60.

- 77. Ibid. Pg. 66.

- 78. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pgs. 79-80; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 77-78.

- 79. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 44, quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 3, Pg. 97.

- 80. Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 3; quoting from: Irshad, Shaykh Mufeed, Vol. 1, Pg. 76.

- 81. Allamah Al-Askari: Saqifah, Edited: Dr. Mahdi Dashti, Pg. 135.

- 82. Mustafi Shirazi: Article in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue No. 184, Bahman 80, Pgs. 64-65.

- 83. Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pg. 37.

- 84. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 62.

- 85. Ibid. Interview in Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 12, Bahman 1379.

- 86. Ameenullah Kareemi: Ahlul Bayt Az Deedgaah-e-Ahlul Sunnat (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 89.

- 87. Jalal Jalalizadeh: Article in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 7, Autumn 80, Pg. 63.

- 88. Muhammad Barfi: Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali 1st Edition 1381, Vol. 2, Pg. 57.

- 89. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 15, Autumn 81, Pg. 8.

- 90. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 12.

- 91. Jamaal Baadroza: Khilafat O Imamat Az Deedgaah-e-Ahlul Sunnat (1st Edition 1381), Pg. 27,

- 92. Ibid. Khilafat O Imamat Az Deedgaah-e-Ahlul Sunnat, Pg. 80.

- 93. Masoodi says that shedding blood gave him maximum pleasure…Ibn Kathir says that in the year 68 A.H. it became customary to celebrate the Day of Ashura as Eid. They dressed in new clothes and felt regretful for not being present in Karbala.
They dug up 3000 graves to bring out the last remains of Ali (‘a).
During the long period of his rule no one could name his child Ali, Hasan or Husayn…
In his time disbelief was not as serious an offence as Shiaism, it was better to say: I am a Kafir than to say I am a Shia.
(Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani:: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pgs. 81-82).

- 94. Ibn Jauzi: Akhbaarun Nisa, Pg. 65.

- 95. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pg. 178 .

- 96. In other words if these versions are compared, their contradictions will become clear.

- 97. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar (Translated by Dr. Sayyid Hasan Iftikharzadeh Sabzawari) Pgs. 875-876.

- 98. Refer: Al-Ghadeer, Vol. 2, Pg. 396.

- 99. The view of Shaykh Mufeed is that the Sunnis cannot prove this marriage on the basis of their books.

- 100. Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani:: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 57.

- 101. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pgs. 872-873.

- 102. Shushtar.

- 103. Umar.

- 104. Umm Kulthum.

- 105. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pg. 873.

- 106. Ahmad Rahmani Hamadani: Fatima Zahra Shadmani Dil-e-Payambar, Pg. 876, quoting from: Shaykh Mufeed.

- 107. Vol. 16, Pg. 103, Dar al-Fikr Beirut.

- 108. Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj (Investigation about the marriage of Umm Kulthum with Umar in Shia and Sunni sources), Pgs. 20-22.

- 109. Since the honorable post of providing water in Masjidul Haraam and distributing Zamzam water was held by Abbas, Umar wanted to destroy this honor and ridicule Abbas.

- 110. Thiqatul Islam Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 346, Tr. 1; Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 14, Pg. 433, Tr. 2.

- 111. Sharif Murtadha: Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 282.

- 112. The point worth noting is that according to Islamic Shariah if four witnesses testify the accused will be punished. If three do and the fourth is proved wrong all the three are punished with 80 lashes. The Second Caliph used this in the matter of Mughaira. Instead of punishing him he lashed the three witnesses. Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 340-345.

- 113. This same document proves that Amirul Momineen (‘a) was not always present in the congregation prayers in the Masjid and other similar rituals.

- 114. Bahrani: Awalim al-Uloom, Vol. 2; quoting from Al-Motatul Baiza, Pg. 139.

- 115. Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 23-26.

- 116. Bahrani: Awalim al-Uloom, Vol. 2; quoting from Al-Motatul Baiza, Pg. 139.

- 117. Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 28-29.

- 118. Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 350; Hurr Amili: Wasaelush Shia, Vol. 3, Pg. 129.

- 119. Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 8, Pg. 462; Ad-Dhariatut Tahira, Pg. 160, Tr. 210; Majmauz Zawaid, Vol. 4, Pg. 499.

- 120. Ibn Abil Hadeed in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, (Vol. 1, Pg. 181), has considered the whip of Umar to be more terrifying than the sword of Hajjaj.

- 121. Fareed Saael: Afsana-e-Iztiwaaj, Pgs. 26-27.

- 122. Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 421; Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 6, Pg. 91; Kamil Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 213; Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya Ibn Kathir, Vol. 7, Pg. 157.

- 123. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pg. 175.

- 124. Those who are interested may refer to detailed discussion on this topic in his books: Ar Rasail al-Ashar fil Ahadith al-Mauzoo fee Kutub as-Sunnah and Muhaziraat fil Itiqaad.

- 125. Kulaini: Furu Kafi, Vol. 5, Pg. 346, & Vol. 6, Pg. 115.

- 126. It is worth mention that some senior scholars like Shaykh Mufeed and Sayyid Murtadha have rejected the marriage totally.

- 127. Tahdhib at-Tahdhib: Vol. 1, Pg. 44; Vol. 11, Pg. 382; Vol. 4, Pg. 106.

- 128. Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 462; Al-Mustadrak: Vol. 3, Pg. 142; As-Sunan al-Kubra: Vol. 7, Pg. 63 & Pg. 114; Tarikh Baghdad: Vol. 6, Pg. 182; Al-Istiab: Vol. 4, Pg. 1954; Usud al-Ghaba: Vol. 5, Pg. 614; Ad-Dhariatut Tahira: Pgs. 157-165;Majmauz Zawaid: Vol. 4, Pg. 499; Al-Musannif Sanaani: Pg. 10354.

- 129. At-Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 463, Printed in Beirut; Al-Isabah: Vol. 4, Part 8, Pg. 275, No. 1473, Darul Kutub al-Ilmiya – Beirut; Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya: Vol. 5, Pg. 330, Darul Ahya Turathul Arabi – Beirut; Ansaab al-Ashraaf: Vol. 2, Pg. 412, Darul Fikr – Beirut; Al-Mustadrak: Vol. 3, Pg. 142, Darul Maroof – Beirut.

- 130. At-Tabaqat al-Kubra: Vol. 8, Pg. 463, Printed in Beirut.

- 131. Mukhtasar Tarikh-e-Damishq: Vol. 6, Pg. 205.

- 132. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 227-235.

- 133. Extract from Arabic text quoted in: Fatima Zahra Bahjat Qalb-e-Mustafa, Vol. 2, Pgs. 655-656.

- 134. By Shaykh Mufeed (q.s.).

- 135. According to Late Muhaqqiq Shustari we can arrange this as follows:
a) Umm Kulthum Kubra; daughter of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
b) Umm Kulthum Sughra; daughter of slave-wife.
c) Zainab Kubra; daughter of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
d) Zainab Sughra; daughter of slave-wife.

- 136. Refer: Muhaqqiq Shushtari: Qamoos ar-Rijaal, Vol. 10, Pg. 205.

- 137. Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 59.

- 138. Refer: Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Zalaamatu Umm Kulthum, Pgs. 127-131.

- 139. Historical sources have mentioned that: Umm Habiba daughter of Kharja bin Zaid Ansari – wife of Abu Bakr – after his death, gave birth to a daughter who was named Umm Kulthum. (Nuwairi: Nihayatul Arab, translated by Dr. Muhammad Damghani, Vol. 4, Pg. 117).
Historical sources also say that Umar also asked for the hand of a daughter of Abu Bakr named Umm Kulthum. (Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Maarif, Pg. 175; Maqdasi: Al-Bada wat Tarikh, Vol. 5, Pg. 92) .
In the same way in all the above documents it is clearly mentioned that:
The Umm Kulthum mentioned in these documents was married to Talha bin Ubaidullah (Cousin of Abu Bakr and a strong supporter of Ayesha).
Therefore it must be said: In the beginning Umar asked for the hand of Umm Kulthum daughter of Umm Habiba.

- 140. Refer: Dr. Ali Akbar Hasani: Tarikh Tahlili wa Siyasi Islam, Vol. 2, Pg. 59.

- 141. Even if we do not agree to the view of Ayatullah Marashi we can still say that the suggestion of Amr Aas to marry the daughter of Amirul Momineen (‘a) created a new motive in the Second Caliph.

- 142. On the basis of this it is known that Abu Bakr had two daughters named Umm Kulthum.

- 143. Ustad Ja’far Murtadha believes that the intention of Umar in trying to marry the daughter of Amirul Momineen (‘a) whether it be Umm Kulthum, the elder, from Her Eminence, Zahra or Umm Kulthum, the younger, from slave wife or her step-daughter was to insult His Eminence (‘a). (Refer: Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Zalaamatu Umm Kulthum, Pgs. 78 & 110).

- 144. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 133.

- 145. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 21; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 4, Pg. 132.

- 146. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 219; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 8, Pgs. 254-255 & Muruj az-Zahab, Pgs. 359-360.

- 147. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 337; quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 1, Pg. 689.

- 148. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 198; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pgs. 54-55.

- 149. Ibid. Pg. 196.

- 150. Ibid. Pg. 196; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 48 Ibid. Pg. 196; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 48.

- 151. Ibid. Pg. 246; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 62.

- 152. Sayyid Jawad Mustafavi: Article quoted in Kitab Wahdat (Book of Unity), Pgs. 139-140; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 53.

- 153. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 282; quoting from: Tarikh Damishq, Ibn Asakir, Vol. 6, Pg. 24.

- 154. Ibid. Pg. 297; quoting from: Majma az-Zawaid, Vol. 7, Pg. 226.

Discourse 5: Publicized Analysis About The Relation Of Amirul Momineen (‘a) With Caliphs

A) Ali’s criticism of Caliphs

The sermon of Shiqshiqya and his other stands prove Caliphs’ deviations and perversions from the right path.

“Whenever Ali witnessed any wrong from Caliphs or any of their colleagues, he openly criticized them.”1

Here it must be asked how they can claim:

“History does not mention that His Eminence, Ali (‘a) uttered a sentence or a word against the other Caliphs.”!2

That which is worth noting in this debate are the social conditions so blindly and ignorantly prevailing on the people in those days that made totally impossible for any voice of criticism to rise against Caliphs. To criticize was neither easy nor tolerable to the people. Such an environment gave a free hand to Caliphs without fearing any opposition.

As a result, the silence of Imam Ali (‘a) was due to the conditions prevailing then. It should not be attributed to fear; or seeing eye-to-eye from the side of Imam Ali (‘a).

Ibn Abil Hadeed writes in this regard:

“Ali had very painful matters at heart as regards the Caliphate. But the tyranny of Umar restrained him from expression to his feelings during the periods of Abu Bakr and Umar.”3

This was the reason for Ali’s silence, which was too hard and heavy to him. He saw the Caliphs going astray and deviated from the right path but the conditions forced him to keep quiet.

In any case:

“To oppose the government was not easy for Imam Ali (‘a). In the early years, it was very hard to Ali. He tried to take refuge in isolation to avoid face-to-face situation.

The fate of Saad bin Ubadah was a very painful example.

He did not give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. In the period of Abu Bakr or Umar news came that Jinns have killed him in Damascus.

Some sources4 indicate that his murder was political.”5

In the same way:

“Opinion of Imam about Caliphate of the three Caliphs remained confined to himself. The stringent conditions deprived him of any freedom of expression. Caliphate of the first two (Abu Bakr and Umar) receded into the annals of history. As for the third (Uthman) again Ali did not find an opportunity to express his judgment.

The handicap was Imam’s soldiers in Kufa were those who had acknowledged the authority of Abu Bakr and Umar. In their presence Imam could not speak freely. Only once he got the opportunity. He gave expression to his agonies suffered at the hands of those two. Then all of a sudden he stopped and shifted to some other subject.”6

Because:

“Although he had a multitude of political supporters during his own Caliphate, mostly they had belief in competency of Abu Bakr and Umar. So it was difficult for him state the facts about them or do anything contrary to their attitude as it would have created difficulties for him.”7

In short it can be said that:

Amirul Momineen (‘a) had to face insurmountable difficult conditions.

“Any change in political trend from the past two Caliphs was, for Ali, a change from a norm to which the people had become familiar and habituated for a quarter of a century. A multitude of people had come under Ali’s banner because they were critics of Uthman as to why he was not following in the footsteps of Abu Bakr and Umar. (It shows how hard it would have been for Ali himself.)”8

Therefore, before dwelling on analysis of Imam Ali’s (‘a) speeches, it would be interesting to see the trend of the people:

“People of those days…came after Ali to persuade him to become Caliph. But they expected him to follow the track of Umar.”9

“Some people clearly told the Imam (‘a) that he must act on the practice of the past Caliphs.”10

“Ezzat-al-Din Abu Hamid Motazalli has gone a step forward and says: People’s getting accustomed to Umar was the main reason for their opposition to Ali bin Abi Talib. Ebb and flow of their opposition kept playing for long, Sometimes, it caused Ali’s anger and anguish. He used to ask whether the tradition of the Prophet was better or that of Umar?!...11

Ali himself says that innovation in religion had taken a deep and strong root. If I were to disclose the real ruling or decree of faith in such regard, people would have left me and dispersed from around me.

Imam Ali (‘a) further says: I told the people that in the month of Ramadan except for daily prayers they must not come for any other congregation prayer and announced that praying collectively in recommended prayers is innovation.

Some soldiers who had fought under my command shouted: O, Muslims! Look, the tradition of Umar is altered. Ali wants us to give up recommended prayers of Ramadan.

So with such mentality of the people, Ali says that he feared mutiny.12”13

Circumstances such as these also did not allow Ali to restore Fadak during his own rule.14

Anyway, from time to time at an opportunity whether short or long, Ali utilized to express his victimization and the tyranny done against him. Ibn al-Hadeed writes:

“Narrations that have reached us in continuity inform us about the situation of Ali. He has told something like this:

I have been oppressed since passing away of the Prophet right till this day.”15

Historical documents show that the people were also exercising a severe force on Ali. When such an opinion prevails generally Imam Ali (‘a) refers to them (Abu Bakr and Umar) with great circumspection. This widely disseminated opinion snatched from him the possibility of criticizing them openly.

To be acquainted with the necessity that forced Ali to accept the past as it preceded him refer to the third volume of this series.

A little attention to historical documents indicates the elements that existed during Ali’s Caliphate which impeded him to criticize or censure his predecessors, particularly Umar.

The following document, for example, shows the stringent conditions that ruled over Ali. From this, we can grasp the tight and narrow possibilities that were at Ali’s disposal:

Muawiyah in his letter to Ali writes:

“I have heard the news of your remembering them (Caliphs preceding Ali) with mercy and kindness. This could be either of the two reasons – to which there is no third. This might be due to dissimulation because you are afraid that your soldiers with whom you fight against me would desert you. And the second reason is what you say is false and wrong.

Also I have come to know that you have told your Shias who have gone perverted and astray: I have named my three sons: Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. So whenever you hear me send blessings on Imams of perversion you should know that I mean my sons.”16

B) Why Ali named his sons after Caliphs?

What Muawiyah says in his letter so openly and frankly shows that Ali was obliged to maintain some outward symptoms of affection towards the three Caliphs. This will also refute another conjecture that is claimed:

“Another sign of his affection for the three Caliphs is that He named his sons Abu Bakr bin Ali, Umar bin Ali and Uthman bin Ali.”!17

“The leader of Friday prayers of Zahidan (Iran) who is a Sunni spoke to his audience that three brothers of Imam Husayn were martyred in Karbala, as they fought along with their brothers. This shows the ties of affection between the family of Ali and the Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman).”!18

Anyway, it should be noted that:

“Such arguments from early Islamic days and in the run of historical events have played a part and given a trend to the political status of the Prophet’s House. Further, these events just give a deluding face to the actual facts that existed behind the events. There is nothing tangible in it – except a public-deceiving device. In other words, to use the common term we should say that they are far from being real. Therefore, they are nothing more than a guise to provide a show to public.

Those who have a little information about history, Islamic civilization, culture and something regarding Arabs they certainly know that names such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were already current among the people prior and later to Islam. People were called by these names. They have no bearing on the personalities. Nor these names came into being because of the personalities.

In a social culture, no matter whichever society, inimical or intimate relations do not cause one to be named or not named after the names of either friends or enemies. Names have nothing to do with mutual relations. Names cannot be prohibited.

In the norm of today’s society, too expression of love or hatred cannot be based on a name. Because of name of one family there exists enmity, which ends in a murder of another.

If the name of the murderer happens to be Abdullah the family of victim could be angry or demand compensation etc. to assuage its hurt and grievance. But its hatred with the name Abdullah is not justifiable.

Far beyond this, there is no one who does not know the enmity and its extent between Muawiyah and Bani Umayyah with the Prophet’s House and its Shias.

But a brief look at History and biographical books will show that the Bani Hashim and Shias19 continued to name their children Muawiyah and even Yazid for centuries. Here we present a few examples:20

Name Of Muawiyah In Use

– Muawiyah bin Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib (from Bani Hashim)

– Muawiyah bin Harith and Muawiyah bin Sasaye from Shias and companions of Ali.

– Muawiyah bin Ammar, Muawiyah bin Wahab (among Shias and companions of Imam Baqir (‘a);

– Muawiyah bin Saeed, Muawiyah bin Salma, Muawiyah bin Sawade, Muawiyah bin Sahl, Muawiyah bin Tareef, Muawiyah bin Abdullah, Muawiyah bin al-Ala, Muawiyah bin Kulaib, Muawiyah bin Maisarah. All of them were Shia and among companions of Imam Sadiq.

- Muawiyah Ja’fari was a Shia and among companions of Imam Moosa Kazim (‘a).

– Muawiyah bin Hakam and Muawiyah bin Yahya were among companions of Imam Reza (‘a) and…

Name Of Yazid In Use

– Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abu Bakr bin Ja’far (his mother was Fatima Binte Husayn bin Hasan bin Ail);21

– Yazid bin Ahnaf, Yazid bin Jibelleh, Yazid bin Tomeh, Yazid bin Qays, Yazid bin Nowaise, Yazid bin Hani. All these were Shias and companions of Ali (‘a).

– Yazid bin Laheet, Yazid bin Haseen, Yazid bin Ziyad. All these three were Shias companions of Imam Husayn. All these three were among the martyrs of Karbala.

– Yazid bin Hatim was among companions of Imam Zainul Aabideen (‘a).

– Yazid al-Kannasi, Yazid bin Khyam, Yazid bin Ziyad, Yazid bin Abdullah, Yazid bin Abdul Malik Jofi, Yazid bin Muhammad Nishapuri, Yazid bin Abdul Malik Nofekhi. All these were Shias and companions of Imam Baqir (‘a).

– Yazid bin Awar, Yazid al-Qamat, Yazid bin Esbaat, Yazid bin Ishaq, Yazid bin Khalid, Yazid bin Khaleel, Yazid bin Umar bin Talha, Yazid bin Farkhad, Yazid bin Haroon al-wasti. All of them were Shias and companion of Imam Sadiq.

– Yazid bin Hasan, Yazid bin Khalifa, Yazid bin Saleh. All of them were Shias and companions of Imam Moosa Kazim (‘a).

– Yazid bin Uthman, Yazid bin Umar. Both of them were Shias and companions of Imam Reza (‘a).

It can be noted how this name was common among Shias.

On the basis this can we conclude that relations between Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan and Ali bin Abi Talib and Bani Hashim and Shias were very close and good? Who can even for a moment think that Yazid bin Muawiyah did not commit any wrong or did not kill Imam Husayn and his family?

What is certain is that names do not reflect the kind of relations that exist between the bearers of those names.

In every society, names come into fashion and later get out of date by losing attraction or text of its contents. Besides they depend on personal taste or cultural vicissitude. Even in Sunni societies names of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman are less in circulation because they are selected. For instance, I have myself searched among the writers of Nida-e-Islam but I did not find one bearing any of these three names. However, in the early centuries of Islam, this was not the case. These names were familiar and customary.

However, getting these names out of norm particularly from Shia circles must be due to general will and intention of the people during the past centuries.

Besides the wars that took place between Ottomans and Safavid rulers (of Iran) took a religious pretext to itself. This too could be the cause for the names receding into oblivion.

During the centuries – not too remote, Shias22 created a far-reaching and widely embracing cultural movement, which ultimately covered all aspects and angles. This movement rather winnowed and sifted the names leaving only those of Infallible Imams. Shias began to use names of Imams. Therefore, Shias completely eschewed the names, which remind them of enemies of Ahlul Bayt (‘a). Little by little this Shia practice took to itself a look of ‘enemy to the enemies’ and ‘friend to the friends’ of the Prophet’s House. In other words, to hate the enemy and befriend the friend of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet. In the earlier centuries, such an understanding in selecting the names did not exist.

According to the foregone details now in this present age after lapse of fourteen centuries, names cannot be the gauge of relations between two sides. Other grounds should be searched to find the reason of enmity or friendship.23

In that age too, there was not any proof of good relation by means of the name. These names perhaps were common among Arabs in those days.

In other words:

According to their taste or choice they used to select a name for their newborns. There was nothing bad in these names. We do not find in any books of opponents even in recent times; that is since fifty years onward, that through the commonality of these they have argued that the Imams were at good terms with the Caliphs.24

In the same way it is narrated from Amirul Momineen (‘a) that he said regarding the naming of his son, Uthman: I have named him after my brother Uthman bin Ma’zoon.25

Another Outlook About These Namings

“Naming the children itself, is an issue of irrecusable importance. Such it has been since ancient times. The magnitude of this issue depends upon social status of the person. More serious the issue if greater the position of the person. There are many incidents in history. After having had named their children they have changed and chosen some other names because the first names were not approved by the Prophet or did not meet his taste. Or with regard to, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn and Mohsin, they were named first with names which were changed later.

There are cases that show the tyrant rulers, Caliphs, from social and political aspects, dictated the names for the persons they liked. In those prevailing conditions, no one could oppose the chosen name.

With regard to son of Ali whose name was Umar, Sunni sources have explained:

“Hafiz Midhi,26 Ibn Hajar Asqalani27 and other writers have written:

When Saha Binte Rabiya wife of Imam Ali (‘a) gave birth to a male child, Umar bin Khattab named the child after himself!!

In our opinion, this too should be the same ground as the issue of marriage with the daughter of Amirul Momineen (‘a) under compulsion.”28

C) Are narrations attributed to Ali about his praise of Caliphs correct?

Answer to this question can be on two divisions:

Part A: Narrations In Sunni Books

“In books of people opposed to Amirul Momineen (‘a) it is attributed that: Ali (‘a) has praised the two Caliphs in different words. Like:

“The best of the men after the Prophet is Abu Bakr and after him it is Umar.’”29

Rather Ibn Taimmiyah writes in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah: Ali often used to say: If a man comes to me and says I am superior to Abu Bakr and Umar I would carry God’s decree against him for lying and lash him.

We have spoken in the past regarding this subject referring to the words of Ibn Abdul Barr.30 Now we wish to dwell on details.

First: Such matters attributed to Imam Ali (‘a) are mostly and only mentioned in the books of Sunnis; such things are never found in Shia books. The logic of argument is lame here. They always trod over norms and trespass the standard formulas whenever Amirul Momineen (‘a) comes into question.

Second: No books of repute among Sunni authorities have mentioned these things. If at all anything is mentioned, it is mentioned not as an established fact. They mention under a guise of: It is told of Ali or: Having had told of Ali…Such a tone of narration eschews responsibility. It does not establish the narrated matter as solid truth. Such type of narration either in history or by any authority in itself, loses credibility. They are deprived of any strength that a document or a reality should have.

Third: Existence of words and plenitude of narrations besides the multitude of narrators about superiority of Ali and about the best qualities in his person, in addition to the constant sayings of Prophet regarding the worth and highly dignified status of Ali repudiate praise for Caliphs. There remains no room to any praise for any Caliphs. It is invented to bedim the widespread glitter of Prophet’s praise of Ali: There was no need for Ali to praise Caliphs.

Fourth: There are evidences in excess that prove attributions such as these as false and absolutely lie. We suffice with one:

Ibn Abdul Barr in his book Al-Istiab Fil Marefat-al-Ashaab writes on the authority of reputed personalities such as Salman, Miqdad, Abu Dharr, Habbab, Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansaari, Abu Saeed Khudri and Zaid bin Arqam:

Ali bin Abi Talib is the first one to embrace Islam. After that he writes: They all gave Ali priority over others.31

Here it is necessary to point out that those who had such a belief in Ali or they viewed Ali at such a station, were in all twenty persons. They were themselves companions and enjoyed a good reputation in society.

The author of Al-Istiab has avoided many others and only refers to these twenty persons that he deems fit. The question who was the first to become Muslim has a great bearing on worth or reputation in Sunni books. Its answer is Ali. Therefore, this very element singly brings much credit and worth to Ali. Sunni sources have narrated that Abu Bakr embraced Islam after fifty persons32 had become Muslims. Therefore, they created such baseless stories to stain Ali’s reputation because of the realities of his personality, which cannot be denied. More strange is that they have created stories to say that it was Abu Bakr who embraced Islam first though they have no evidence to prove it. There are several such false stories but don’t have to argue their worth. The theme of our argument is the saying of a highly reputed scholar among adversaries of Shia. He is Ibn Abdul Barr Qurtubi. He says in his book that many among the Prophet’s companions have acknowledged Ali’s superiority over Abu Bakr. We all know this but Ali during all the periods, including when he was in power did not punish any for this matter.

Here we see Ibn Hajar Asqalani helpless and seeking to rescue himself. On the other hand, they attributed Ali having told that he would punish those who say Ali was better than Abu Bakr and Umar. If it was true, why Ali did not punish anyone? Ibn Abdul Barr adds: And they preferred him upon others. The contradiction is quite obvious in his saying.

We have evidences that say similar things attributing it to the past scholars and some to recent ones – each trying to establish his claim.”33

In the end it is noted that Caliphs themselves have admitted superiority of Ali in learning and knowledge. In many cases, Ali went to their help. He solved their problems and clarified many issues. This aspect of knowledge is very important for a Caliph. This itself is enough to refute what Ibn Taimmiyah has claimed.

Part B: Narrations Mentioned In Nahjul Balagha And Al-Gharaat

They say:

“As Umar loved Ali and showed his deep affection to him, Ali also reciprocated. Ali helped him as much as he could. When Umar was martyred, Ali used to remember him saying: May God bestow good on him as he straightened the crooked.”!34

“On many occasions Ali has praised them. Among such utterance is his statement about the Second Caliph in Nahjul Balagha…”!35

Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi says in reply:

“It is said that in Sermon 228 of Nahjul Balagha36 the Second Caliph is referred with admiration and appreciation.

In this respect we should know that:

First: Does this sermon contradict matters of other sources, even Shiqshiqya sermon and letters of His Eminence in criticism and objections against the Caliphs or not?

Second: If we pay attention to moderation, preference and accuracy in principle not in hearsay, with this attitude if we glance at the lecture in question, can we still say it is in praise of the Caliph? Mr. Hujjati Kermani claims that there is a reasoning weakness.

Third: Whether by principle this lecture is attributed to Ali. Is it not doubtful to researchers?

In Tarikh Tabari – a reputed book among Sunnis – it is mentioned:

When Umar died, daughter of Abi Khathima wept and said: Ah! Umar! Straightened the crooked; and cured the sick.

Mughaira Ibn Shoba said: When Umar was buried, I came to Ali. He had just taken the bath. His head and beard were still wet. He was wrapped in a wide towel. He was sure that Caliphate would reach to him. He said: May God send His mercies on him. Daughter of Abi Khathima spoke the truth. He gained the good and is saved from the evil of the world. By God! She did not say these words. But she was told to say these words …37

The foregone text in lecture No.228 (219 Faizul Islam) runs:

May God bestow on him the good. He made straight the sinuous and cured the ill. He attained good of the world and is rescued from its evil.

There is a similarity in both.

Now, Tabari narrates the incident of the year 23 A.H. The text too is said by Ali in the same year. Its reason is also obvious. Ali says the words do not belong to the daughter of Abi Khathima but were dictated to her.38 Ali might have repeated those words out of astonishment.

On the other hand, the principle of accuracy obliges one to be attentive of Mughaira bin Shoba. He is not trustworthy. Narrations from him are bereft of credibility. Therefore, how can this narration be worthy to accept its authenticity? When the narrator is Mughaira how can we accept it as saying of Ali?

Besides, in the lecture of Ali where is that part that compels us to believe that he means the Second Caliph?

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli in Vol. 12 of Sharh Nahjul Balagha while explaining the sermon 228 refers to this subject too. Hajj Mirza Habeebullah Hashimi Khoei the famous commentator of Nahjul Balagha says in Vol. 14 Pg. 371 onward of Minhaj al-Baraya fee Sharh Nahjul Balagha that after such a criticism against Caliphs how could he have said so? We can ignore all these things.

The Late Ustad Mutahhari in his essay Sairi Dar Nahjul Balagha says:

“Ibn Abil Hadeed believes the story that there are sentences in Nahjul Balagha in praise of Umar.

But there are some contemporaries who have narrated in different form. It runs thus: Ali came out of his house and saw Mughaira. In a tone of interrogation, he asked Mughaira whether was it true what the daughter of Abi Khathima said in praise of Umar?

Therefore, as such this cannot be confirmed that it was Ali’s saying or Ali’s acceptance of the words of the speaker that Sayyid Razi included in the text of Nahjul Balagha by mistake.39

Of course, through careful attention, study of the text of Tabari’s saying Abi Khathima’s daughter and text of the sermon 228 we can distinguish the subject matter.”40

Thus, it seems Imam Ali (‘a) has repeated the words of the girl by way of surprise. There is another point to be paid attention to:

In the closing sentences, Ali says:

“The astrayed cannot be guided and the guided one cannot retain certainty, nor could he rest assured.”

The Researcher Shushtari’s outlook

Perhaps in the end it would still be hard to believe the mistake committed by Sayyid Razi. Because it is said:

“Shias accept Nahjul Balagha and whatever is in its text. The relation between Ali and Caliphs as indicated in the text is acceptable to a Shia because it is the most creditable book among Shias. If any narration any book happens to be in contrast with Nahjul Balagha they (Shia) prefer Nahjul Balagha.”!41

But it must be said:

“The past commentators because of extraordinary reputation of Nahjul Balagha were fond of Sayyid Razi and took it for granted to be perfect and without any error since it was the work rendered by Sayyid Razi.

Therefore no one dared to criticize or venture thereat. All considered it the saying of Ali.

But the researcher Shushtari has shown in his other works such as Qamoos ar-Rijaal and Al-Akhbaar ad-Dakheela that he is a skilled commentator; a traditionist and a narrator. Likewise, he is daring to the extent of getting appreciation in literary circles and has gained worldwide reputation. In the town of Shushtar in a corner, he retired from propaganda and was mindful of his own work. He has thoroughly scrutinized the work of Sayyid Razi in compiling Nahjul Balagha. As he appreciates his labor, so he criticizes too. He does not see the compiler who is Sayyid Razi but he sees into the quality of his work. In his view, knowledge is more important than the person who holds it.

Now we dwell on some of his criticisms:

One: Statements under the title of ‘Book 62’ are only a letter of Imam Ali (‘a) to Malik Ashtar in Egypt. It is the text of the speech delivered after the martyrdom of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. Martyrdom of Malik Ashtar was before Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. The letter was read in Kufa. Imam Ali (‘a) had written it and wanted it to be read out to the people.42

Two: The sentence ‘do not kill the Khawarij after me’, itself says that it is not of Ali. We do not find any proof by Sayyid Razi. Had Imam issued such an order his followers would have not killed them. On the other hand we see followers of Ali, at their head Sa’sa bin Sauhan, then Ma’qel bin Qays and Adi bin Hatim and Shareek bin Awar and Shia of Kufa and Basrah all of them exerted their efforts to kill them.43

Three: Sermon 168: The statement ‘…O brothers! I do not ignore that you know. But how can I be powerful when the people draw their greatness upon us to possess us and we don’t.’ This is not of Ali. It is composed by Muawiyah in imitation to Ali.44

Four: Letter 58: Shushtari does not consider it to be of Ali. This letter is also invented. Sayyid Ali Razi has included it unknowingly. Anyway, it is attributed to Ali wrongly.45

Fifth: Sermon 228: According to research, which Shushtari has carried, it is impossible to be of Imam.46 Ibn Abil-Hadid and his followers are wrong who consider it to be of Imam.

Sixth: Sermon 8: According to Shaykh Mufeed, Sayyid Razi attributes this to Imam Hasan.47

Seventh: Sermon 92: ‘Leave me alone and request other than me. If you leave me I will be one like you…’ is not from Imam Ali (‘a). This too is invented and inserted into the contents48.49

Eighth: Sermon 169: ‘God has sent a Prophet…’ too is a creation of others. It does not belong to Ali, or its contents are distorted.50

Ninth: In Sermon 27: There is difference in one sentence.51

Tenth: Saying 289: ‘To me in the past was a brother in way of God.’ This saying is of Imam Hasan and not of Ali.

Eleventh: Saying 22: ‘He who is detained by his work…’ Sayyid Razi attributed this sentence to the Prophet in another book of his52 but now he is attributing it to Ali.53

Twelfth: Saying 296: Is among the saying fabricated and presented by Saif.54

We suffice here only with these twelve items. There are several other items also that we refer as follows according to Bahjus Sibagha:

• Vol. 4 / Pg. 67, 401, 519

• Vol. 6 / 369, 371, 401, 443

• Vol. 7 / 334, 598

• Vol. 8 / 82

• Vol. 9 / 59, 360, 362, 423

• Vol. 10 / 339, 562, 577

• Vol. 11 / 526

• Vol. 12 / 59-60, 94-95, 217, 541, 574

• Vol. 13 / 23, 355, 361

• Vol. 14 / 330, 552, 595

These are the examples we came across while turning the pages of Bahjul Sibagha. Each one of it might seem trifle and trivial, but it attains magnitude while explaining, commenting, translating and researching Nahjul Balagha.

It goes without saying that Shushtari appreciates the work of Sayyid Razi.

He has dwelled more on preface in which he has made a research in the work of Sayyid Razi. This is not repeated in his other works.55

In the same way the claim that Ali has praised Umar is reflected in this text:

“Ibrahim bin Muhammad Thaqafi in his book Al-Gharaat, Pg. 307 has mentioned that Ali said about Umar: “We heard and we obeyed. He was our advisor. He took over the charge. His conduct was satisfactory…”!56

We can investigate and analyze this in the following points:

Point One: The matter taken from the text of Al-Gharaat is a portion from letter of Ali to his followers. This is mentioned in the book also beneath the heading.

It should be reminded here that the letter exists in other sources too.57 Likewise, in Al-Mustarshid fil Imamah58 by Muhammad bin Jurair Tabari Imami Kabeer (died around year 310 A.H.) Reference to the text makes clear the matter.

Point Two: What Ali has mentioned in the letter is in connection to his previous sayings about Abu Bakr. This should be read after studying the conditions prevalent in society in those times.

On the same page of Al-Gharaat, following sentences of Ali are mentioned regarding Abu Bakr:

“…He obeyed God…”59 Then he repeats about Umar “…We obeyed him.”

Imam Ali’s (‘a) obedience is to God not to Caliphs. He obeyed where obedience to God was necessary.

Point Three: Whatever Ali has said about Caliphs, depends on the same circumstances and conditions, which we dwelt in the chapter concerned.

There is an obvious contradiction in Al-Mustarshid page 415 in the text. This confirms an idea that whatever said or done was with an aim to protect Islam and hold the people at it. Else, there was a strong likelihood of people’s reverting to ignorance, i.e. the pre-Islamic days – to idol-worship. The words impart such a sense.

Point Four: The text: a desired conduct and a blessed soul had a great influence on the people of that time which has a bearing on Caliphate. Imam Ali (‘a), in fact, has sketched a general picture of people’s outlook concerning the Caliphs.

A little attention to the norm and nature of Ali’s statement clearly confirms the said conjecture. In reverting to Al-Gharaat, which is newly printed with a commentary and correction of Mir Jalaluddin Husayni known as Traditionist Armavi.

On the same page of the book in Footnote No. 5 he mentioned Allamah Majlisi’s words that the Imam’s words are in keeping with the delicate situation.

Similarly in Footnote no. 6 of the same page he points out the location of some words, which are ahead and some behind. Imam was then speaking about the general condition of the society.

This also applies to the letter of Ali for Egyptians.60

Late Mirza Habeebullah Hashimi Khoei in his commentary on Nahjul Balagha says:

“It seems so with the people and possibly it could be by persuasion of adversaries”61

Of the indications that attest Khoei’s viewpoint is the difference between text of Al-Gharaat62 and Al-Darajaat Ar-Rafia.63 Although late Sayyid Ali Khan Madani has copied the letter from Al-Gharaat, the text is short of some words of praise, which exist, in the present text of Al-Gharaat. This in itself is a proof that the text is altered and added thereon some words.64

Another thing that confirms the views of Allamah Majlisi and Allamah Khoei is that the Imam had reflected people’s outlook. Therefore, his words mirror people’s view about the two Caliphs. The letter is addressed to the people of Madayn. In the end, he adds:

“Then some among Muslims rose and accepted two persons and were pleased to be guided by them and the conduct of the two pleased them.65”66

Final Point: The attitude of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in the six-person Shura committee to appoint a Caliph is quite clear67 as Imam rejects the proposal of Abdur Rahman bin Auf to follow the tracks of two preceding Caliphs. This proves the falsehood of their claims. When he is not willing to follow the policies of the first two Caliphs how can he praise them?

The denial of Ali to the proposal of Abdur Rahman in itself establishes the illegitimacy of Caliphate of the two.

D) Had Ali accepted the legitimacy of Caliphs’ Government?

A wrong interpretation of Letter No. 6 of Ali (‘a) in Nahjul Balagha addressed to Muawiyah has led to creation of a conjecture in propagating the legitimacy of Caliphate of Saqifah besides separating Imamate from Caliphate. Thus, they allege:

“If people had selected a person of authority in consultation with Imam68 he would have administered better under Imam’s guidance.69 There would neither have been civil wars nor any differences resulting in separation of the Ummah. After the Prophet’s passing away Ali was, during the three Caliphs’ rule, a pivot of Islam and its revolution…”70

Ustad Ja’far Subhani in reply to this conjecture writes:

“Imam Ali (‘a) was the only Caliph elected by one and all. Muhajireen and Ansaar (Helper) both sides equally agreed on this. In the history of Caliphate, such unanimity was unprecedented. Such a thing never happened again.

In the meantime, Muawiyah had founded his empire in Syria. He had a hidden enmity that was deeply rooted. He was very much upset and worried with Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of the Prophet. When he learned that Muhajireen and Ansaar had chosen Ali to be the Caliph he refused to acknowledge Ali’s authority and instead accused him of Uthman’s murder and his support to murderers of Uthman.

Imam Ali (‘a), to silence Muawiyah and close all doors of excuse wrote to him: The same persons who had paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have acknowledged my authority and me. Since the Ansaar’s and Muhajireen’s opinion was acceptable to you, they have paid allegiance to me now.

This is the text of Imam’s letter:

‘Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah.’71

The motive of Ali was to exhaust argument on Muawiyah. Imam wanted to wipe out all grounds of mischief from and before Muawiyah.

Muawiyah was Umar’s governor in Syria. Then he maintained his post in the same office in Uthman’s Caliphate. He maintained them in the public as Caliphs of the Prophet of God and himself as their representative.

Imam Ali (‘a) reminded him because Ansaar and Muhajireen had chosen the past Caliphs. So in his own case also happened the same without any deficiency. Therefore, there was no ground to honor their opinion in one case and reject it in another.

Ali adopted the way of argument as Quran also enjoins that. He proceeded with the argument thus:

Those who had given Bay’at to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have given Bay’at to me. So why then did you not pay allegiance to my Caliphate? The reality of argument is not other than this. The opposite side should be convinced on its own terms. What it thinks sacred should be brought against it.

Anyway, the letter does not mean that Ali preferred the method of Islamic government based on consultation. Or he preferred the appointment of Caliph by way of elections. The inner belief of Ali was that the Caliph must be elected by absolute majority or public unanimity. But the issue of Imamate is not of election but by divine appointment.

This cannot be Ali’s view. Had it been so he should have not started his letter from the past three Caliphs in this way:

Muhajireen and Ansaar have paid allegiance to me. Whomever they paid allegiance to will be the leader of Muslims

Imam Ali (‘a) in his subsequent sentences says: And they gathered around a man and named him Imam. In it is God’s pleasure. This is a protest against the belief of opposite side. The word ‘Allah’ does not exist in the original texts of Nahjul Balagha. This discrepancy creates doubt.

In fact, Imam’s opinion seems to be this: Whenever Muslims agree for a man to be their leader, it attains satisfaction and acceptance. Therefore, such a thing has taken place in my case too. Why you remain stubborn?

The first to argue this statement of Imam Ali (‘a) from a Sunni angle is Ibn Abil Hadeed. He has ignored the letter and other speeches of the Imam to establish it as a fixed opinion of Imam.72

Whenever Shia scholars have considered this speech and its interpretation they too have raised our point.”73

The Text Of The Imam’s Letter To Muawiyah Copied From Waqatus Siffeen

“Another attestation to prove that the letter was a protest is existence of sentences, which Sayyid Razi has deleted. But those sentences exist in other books. The method of Sayyid Razi is that he has deleted text or any part, which he deems not serious or sensitive. He mostly pays attention to the elegance of sentences. In other words, the literary aspect enchants him more.

The letter in question is mentioned by Nasr bin Muzahim Minqari (d. 412) that is 147 years before the birth of Sayyid Razi74 in his famous book, Waqatus Siffeen page 48. We refer to some of its deleted parts:

1 – Ali starts the letter like this:

“They paid allegiance to me in Medina. You are in Syria. I have completed and exhausted my argument on you. The absent has no right to object to the decision of the present ones.”

2 – In the end of the letter is this text:

“Talha and Zubair paid allegiance to me but afterwards they both reneged and broke their oath. By so doing, they returned to their initial status and I waged a holy war against them. This did not hurt my Caliphate. Anyway, the truth appeared and rested at its place. God’s command succeeded while they were not pleased. So, you too enter where Muslims have entered.”

3 – Note the following sentence also:

“And you much said about murderers of Uthman. As Muslims have entered, you too do the same. I guide you and them to the Book of God. But the thing you want is a trick by which a milk feeding baby is deceived.”

What Did Muawiyah Want From The Imam?

Muawiyah wanted that Imam should surrender the murderers of Uthman. According to Sulaym bin Qays in his book Asl75 Muawiyah wanted the Imam to take revenge from Uthman’s murderers and then he will pay allegiance to Ali with his followers. On the other hand, Ali was seeing a plot and a trick in Muawiyah’s proposal.

The letter from its beginning to the end clearly seems to be a letter of protest against a stubborn party. Imam knew that his adversary is not a man of truth. He was a tricky person. Therefore, Imam must base his letter on reason and logic not on what he himself believes. This letter does not reflect the real belief of Imam.”76

However, keeping aside Shia belief and attachment to Imamate and Wilayat of Ali, we dwell on the letter itself as it is claimed:

“Liberty of people in choosing Imam and leader of God’s command is acceptable. This makes compulsory on all to obey.” !77

“Consultation is the right of Muhajireen and Ansaar. God is pleased with this if they collectively give their opinion to one as their Imam.” !78

“In the foregone statement, consultation and consensus with a majority of opinion of competent men who were Muhajireen and Ansaar in those days give legitimacy to their choice.”! 79

“In this letter, Imam agrees to the legality of Muhajireen and Ansaar.”!80

Conclusion

According to what is said above there remains no doubt that Imam Ali (‘a) referred to the acknowledgment of Muhajireen and Ansaar to silence his staunch enemy and a strong opponent, Muawiyah and to oblige him to surrender to the Alawi government. We refer to another letter of Ali to Muawiyah to enable the readers to understand the case deeply and thoroughly. Allamah Majlisi in volume 33 of Biharul Anwar has opened an independent chapter under the title: ‘His letter to Muawiyah, his protestations and addresses to him and his companions.’ He mentions beneath it under No. 421. In the battle of Siffeen, Muawiyah called for Abu Darda and Abu Huraira. He sent them to Ali with a letter which the Imam read and replied. Some of his statements in reply are as follows:

“The first thing necessary for Muslims is to choose one to be their Imam to administer their affairs. They have to obey him and follow him. In case if it be their right to choose an Imam.

However in this case – to choose an Imam – be a divine right and the right of His Prophet, then the choice of the people is enough. God has ordered them to follow the Imam.

After the assassination of Uthman, Muhajireen and Ansaar after consultations that lasted three days paid allegiance to me. These same had earlier paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman; and had confirmed their leadership. The people of Badr and those of the advance rows have paid allegiance to me – among Muhajireen and Ansaar. Earlier they had paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman without public consensus. However in my case, they paid allegiance to me with a public consensus.

If God has deposited to the people the right of choosing an Imam for themselves, then they have paid allegiance to guidance. Their Imam is for them an obligation to obey and support. So it is they who have chosen me. They have done so at a consensus and chosen me as their Imam.

If this were only the divine right to appoint an Imam then God has chosen me to be the Imam of the Ummah. He has appointed me as their Caliph. He had enjoined them in His Book to obey me. Traditions of the Prophet also ordered them to obey and support me. This is the strongest proof for my Caliphate. It clearly reflects my right upon the people.”81

This message of Ali confirms Shia outlook about Imamate being a divine office and its appointment directly by God Himself. In this respect, people have no part to play. If people take this matter in their hands, it creates several questions and loses its glitter of originality and falls short of legitimacy that embraces dispute in each and every age as seen in history. Divine Authority needs no human consultation or plot. Muawiyah was confused and confounded and stood in a quandary. He had no way but to surrender to reality and resign to truth.

He had no answer to Ali’s argument that it is the people who have chosen him if God be disputable to Muawiyah. Again on the ground of Quran and traditions, Ali was the Caliph; so each of the two is irrefutable.82 What excuse remains for Muawiyah except obduracy?

Final conclusion: Zahra’s Martyrdom Is Not Fiction

Some have tried to question the reality of Zahra’s martyrdom. They have written:

“Some knowingly or otherwise raise the matter of Zahra’s martyrdom. Their motive is to establish victimization of Ahlul Bayt of Prophet.

This subject is thoroughly searched. We concluded that there existed friendly relations between Ali and Umar. For instance, Umar married Umm Kulthum, daughter of Ali. Ali named his sons: Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Besides, Umar used to consult Ali in most important matters. This shows that there existed intimate and close relations between the two.”83

“Imam (the leader) of Friday prayers of Zahidan, Sunni, said in the lecture before prayers that there are many matters written in bigotry to increase hatred.

Whatever is said or written is not acceptable to us. According to our belief, Zahra died in her bed a natural death. No one martyred her.

The Friday prayers leader referred to the affection and friendly relation between Caliphs and Ali and Zahra. He refers to the marriage of Umm Kulthum, daughter of Ali, to Umar. He further said that it is a proof of love that existed between Ahlul Bayt of Prophet and Umar.84

Leader of the Friday prayers of Zahidan in Friday prayer sermon on 16th Murdad 1383 in Zahidan said on the occasion of the death of Abu Bakr and Zahra and the beginning of Umar’s Caliphate about Caliphs and their superiorities. He said more and more about the good relations they had with the Prophet’s family and the respect they had for them.

He said our lord Ali, our lord Abu Bakr, our lord Umar and our lord Uthman had good relations among themselves and helped each other. He added there was no gulf between them. He said Abu Bakr and Umar gave priority to the family members of the Prophet to their own family members.

Sunni Friday speaker of Zahidan says regarding Zahra that she died a natural death. Her martyrdom is only a propaganda started in recent years.

Such a propaganda is neither to the benefit of Islam nor to advantage of sects – Sunni and Shia.

This is not my personal view alone. The open-minded Shia scholars also are of the same mind.

Such a thing never existed before recent years.”!85

While researches on these matters have proved their falsehood beyond any doubt.

Warning

This is a device to invent things like existence of good terms between Caliphs and Ahlul Bayt (‘a) – the House – the descending spot of angels and revelation from heaven. They go on making claims like:

“The writer has claimed and proved that Ali was on good terms with the three Caliphs…”86

“Tabarra (immunity) from enemies of Prophet’s House is a principle with Shias. But it does not imply those with whom Ali had very close relations for 25 years.”87

This will gradually lead to the situation that even in Shia circles the questions:

“What was the cause of Zahra’s death? Was it a natural death?”88

Will be answered through statements like:

“After the death of her father, she was very much sad and depressed for many days that told upon her health. She wept day and night and in a few days became weak and feeble. She became seriously ill and passed away in a few days…”!89

Or with regard to congregational gatherings and meetings to commemorate the tragedy of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) as we will explain in the deviated analysis like:

“The British Embassy was indirectly responsible of establishing meeting each day in the mosques after the night prayers in which the side-breaking of Zahra was lamented in excess.”90

We close this book with the verdict of Ayatullah Tabrizi about whoever doubts the martyrdom of Zahra (s.a.):

This is the text of the verdict is as follows:

In this exalted Name. It is not allowed to support one who doubts Zahra’s martyrdom. We do not believe such a man to be learned. Had he been so he would have been aware of narration reports about her martyrdom which are obvious and evident and other narrations about the cause of her martyrdom.

May Allah guide to the straight way.91

- 1. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 101.

- 2. Farooq Safizaada: Article quoted in Kayhan Farhangi, Issue 170, Azar 79, Pg. 80.

- 3. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 193, quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 9, Pg. 25.

- 4. Refer: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 17, Pg. 223.

- 5. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 17.

- 6. Ibid. Pg. 18.

- 7. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 239.

- 8. Ibid. Pg. 240.

- 9. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh wa Seerah Siyasi Amir-e-Mominaan Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) History and political biography of Ali (‘a), Pg. 230.

- 10. Ibid. Pg. 232.

- 11. Quoting from: Daimul Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 384, Nahjus Saada, Vol. 1, Pg. 229.

- 12. Quoting from: Rauza Kafi, Pgs. 58-63; Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 136.

- 13. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 240.

- 14. Refer: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 231.

- 15. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 9, Pg. 306.

- 16. Muhammad Ismail Ansari Zanjani: Translation of Asraar Aale Muhammad, Pg. 435.

- 17. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 1, Pg. 135.

- 18. Abdul Hameed Ismail Zahi: Appeal quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 9, Spring 81, Pg. 71.

- 19. Arabic speaking

- 20. For more information most books of Shia Rijaal can be referred like: Rijaal Toosi, Rijaal Barqi, Rijaal Kishi, Mojamur Rijaal al-Hadith of Ayatullah Khui.

- 21. Father and son, both from Bani Hashim were named Yazid after the tragedy of Karbala.
Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib had two more brothers named Hasan and Salih. All three were from the same mother and they participated in the uprising of Nafs-e-Zakiyyah
(Refer: Abul Faraj Isfahani: Maqatil at-Talibiyyin)

- 22. Especially non-Arabic-speaking

- 23. Engineer Jawad Husayni Tabatabai: Dar Pasukh-e-Afsana-e-Shahadat, Pgs. 181-184.

- 24. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pg. 237.

- 25. Abul Faraj Isfahani: Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, (Translated by Rasooli Mahallati), Pg. 80.

- 26. Tahdhib al-Kamal: Vol. 21, Pg. 467.

- 27. Tahdhib at-Tahdhib: Vol. 7, Pg. 411.

- 28. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 235-236.

- 29. Sharh al-Mawafiq: Vol. 8, Pg. 367 .

- 30. This statement will be repeated further in this text.

- 31. Al-Istiab: Vol. 3, Pg. 109, Edit. Bajawi.

- 32. Tarikh Tabari: Vol. 2, Pg. 316.

- 33. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Imamat-e-Bila Fasl (Edit. Muhammad Reza Kareemi), Pgs. 237-241.

- 34. Muhammad Barfi: Seemai Ali Az Manzar Ahlul Sunnat (Portrait of Ali from the Sunni point of view), 1st Edition 1380, Pg. 115.

- 35. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Ittelaat Daily, Issue No. 29, Khordad 1379.

- 36. Sermon 219, Faid al-Islam Edition.

- 37. Tarikh Tabari: Vol. 3, Pg. 285, Account of Year 23 A.H.

- 38. That is there were such people who publicized such things and introduced the Caliphs as such.

- 39. Seeri Dar Nahjul Balagha, Pg. 164.

- 40. Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi: Haqeeqat Sookhte, Pgs. 49-54.

- 41. Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi: Article quoted in Kitab-e-Wahdat, Pg. 139; article quoted in Mashkoot Magazine, Issue No. 2, Spring 62, Pg. 58.

- 42. Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 4, Pgs. 369-373.

- 43. Ibid. Vol. 5, Pg. 473.

- 44. Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 448-465, especially Pgs. 428 & 449.

- 45. Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 466-480.

- 46. Ibid. Vol. 9, Pgs. 480-509.

- 47. Ibid. Vol. 9, Pg. 536; quoting from: Al-Jamal, Pgs. 322-327.

- 48. Ibid. Vol. 9, Pg. 564.

- 49. It is necessary to mention that this statement of Nahjul Balagha is used to show separation between Imamate and Caliphate and in the end to make rulership of Amirul Momineen (‘a) valueless.
(Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 17).

- 50. Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 10, Pgs. 40-44.

- 51. Ibid. Vol. 12, Pgs. 90-91.

- 52. Sayyid Razi: Al-Majazaatun Nabawiyyah, Pg. 401, Tr. 317.

- 53. Bahjus Sibagha: Vol. 14, Vol. 477.

- 54. Ibid. Vol. 14, Pg. 573.

- 55. Muhammad Sahati Sardarudi: Article quoted in the book, Mashal-e-Javed, Dalil Publishers.

- 56. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article quoted in Kitab Naqd Magazine, Issue No. 19, (Vol. 2), Summer 80, Pg. 31.

- 57. Refer: Ali Akbar Zakiri: Hukoomat O Siyasat (Letter of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to Shias about Caliphs), Pgs. 29-36.

- 58. Research: Ahmad Mahmoodi: Mausisa Thaqafatul Islamiya, Pgs. 409-427.

- 59. This statement is also mentioned in Kashful Muhajja of Sayyid bin Tawoos, al-Mustarshid of Tabarai Imami Kabir and Al-Imamah was Siyasah of Ibn Qutaibah.

- 60. Sayyid Abul Fazl Barqai in his Preface to the book, Shahira-e-Ittihaad has based his view on this document about good relations of Amirul Momineen (‘a).

- 61. Hashimi Khoei: Minhaaj al-Bara-a, Vol. 6, Pg. 106.

- 62. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat, Vol. 1, Pg. 210.

- 63. Sayyid Ali Khan Madani: Ad-Darajaat ar-Rafia (Elevated Positions), Pg. 336.

- 64. This possibility is also applicable to the book of Ad-Darajaat ar-Raafia as it also contains many praises of the Caliphs.

- 65. For more information refer to Section One of the 4th volume of this book.

- 66. Muhammad Baqir Mahmoodi: Nahjus Saada Fee Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 4, Pg. 23.

- 67. Refer: Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 26, Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 188, Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 162, Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 22.

- 68. The interesting point is that these people forget their own claims that after the passing away of the Prophet they selected Abu Bakr as Caliph without consulting Ali (‘a) – Refer: Mashal-e-Ittehad, Pg. 20.

- 69. Which of the three Caliphs was selected on the choice of the people? Abu Bakr got the Bayyat of just five of his associates in Saqifah, Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr and Uthman was chosen through the trick of Shura.

- 70. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 71. Nahjul Balagha (Abduh), Letter 6.

- 72. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 14, Pg. 36.

- 73. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Rahbari-e-Ummat (Leadership of the nation), Pgs. 64-66.

- 74. Sayyid Razi was born in 359 A.H. and passed away in year 406 A.H.

- 75. These letters exchanged between Imam (‘a) and Muawiyah are quoted in Asl Sulaym bin Qais, Najaf, Pgs. 159-176.

- 76. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Article ‘Mushawera Dar Quran O Nahjul Balagha’ quoted in the book Kawish Dar Nahjul Balagha, Pgs. 195-197.

- 77. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 71.

- 78. Ibid. Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 86.

- 79. Ibid. Shura O Bayyat, Pg. 88.

- 80. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Interview with Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5 Pg. 177.

- 81. Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 33, Pg. 144.

- 82. Muawiyah considered himself to be appointed by the past Caliphs as the governor of Syria and therefore could not object to the validity of their Caliphate.

- 83. Abdul Aziz Nomani: Article ‘Fatima Zahra az Wiladat Ta Afsana-e-Shahadat’ quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine (under supervision of Hauzatul Ilmiya Darul Uloom, Zahidan), Issue No. 3, Autumn 79, Pg. 68.

- 84. Abdul Hameed Ismail Zahi: Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 6, Summer 80, Pg. 70.

- 85. Ibid. Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 18, Summer 83, Pg. 8.

- 86. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 87. Ibid. Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 88. Dr. Jawad Muhaddaseen: Article quoted in Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue 3, Shariwar 1380.
This article is in reply to the objections of Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani and it has challenged him to reply to these questions.

- 89. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Aftaab-e-Yazd Daily, Issue No. 8, Khordad 1381.

- 90. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Hambastigi-e-Mazahib-e-Islami (Preface to the 3rd Edition), Pg. 20.

- 91. Ayatullah Al-Uzma Mirza Jawad Tabrizi: Zulmaat-e-Fatima Zahra (Markaz al-Bahoos al-Aqaidiya, Darus Siddiqatus Shaheeda), Pg. 30.

A Victim Lost in Saqifah Vol. 3 - A Glance at thirteen years of Caliphs’ reign since Saqifah

Motive Of This Research

Analysis of the method and type of His Eminence, Amirul Momineen Ali’s (‘a) government was one of the subjects for a thorough research in recent years, that is two years (Solar) were named after Imam Ali (‘a). This resulted in an abundant output in this field, either in books or in shape of articles written on this matter.

Our main aim of writing this is to gauge the originality of these endeavors by means of criticism and analysis into claims such as:

“His Eminence, Ali (‘a) was not a governor or an administrator in an ordinary sense. He was not a Caliph as those of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. But he was a Caliph at parity with Abu Bakr and Umar!

The pivot around which policies of our Lord and Master Ali rotated was the spirit that protected Caliphate of the prophets and the way of the Righteous Caliphs.”!1

“And this statement is not correct that Caliphate of the preceding Caliphs and the four members, altogether, differed from one another in thought, policy and aims. Each of these four Caliphs was a mirror reflecting one image. They together reflected and represented Caliphate of the Prophet. One spirit ran between the four. These four collectively completed one image, one system and one aim.”!2

“Salient here is conduct and true faith of Caliphs in Islam and divine teachings. Humility of Caliphs, their unanimity in word and deed, their moderation and honesty is worth appreciating. Scrutiny into their life shows that they collectively had one and same moral and manner.”!3

“When Islam was subject of conversation and Islamic teachings and law, Ali did not discriminate between the learned and ignorant. In the same way was Umar.”!4

“Ali was like Umar in piety of a poor life.”!5

“Ali was strict and hard like Umar. He acted as per laws of religion.”6

In order to answer these claims and conjectures we have tried to scrutinize the praises rendered to Caliphs and their rule. We have tried to display contrasts and contradictions in narrations based on documents of Sunni sources. This will assist the reader to conclude for himself in the light of proofs and reach a judgment about the claims made in this regard.

Reminder

Perhaps after reading the above statements our reader might ask why in this analysis of thirteen years of the rule of two Caliphs nothing is mentioned about usurpation of Ali’s Caliphate which is followed by denial of his Imamate and Wilayat, attack on Zahra’s house which resulted in the martyrdom of Zahra (s.a.) and Mohsin Ibn Ali (‘a), usurpation of Fadak, denial of Khums and inheritance etc. and all the other crimes committed with regard to Ahlul Bayt (‘a)?

Because these events themselves are self-explanatory about the behaviors and moral of Caliphs and their tyrant rule.

In the same way some of you might think that if the analysis done so far had been compared with the method of administration of Imam Ali (‘a) the result would have been more beneficial and satisfactory.

In reply, we should say that the thing which impeded us to write these points is that extensive influence of the outlook of open-minded people who urge us to avoid criticizing this period of thirteen years. They insist to not compare this period with Ali’s government. Else, the reader would see the simplicity and matchlessness of Ali’s government in those days. The reader would see the status of freedom and liberty. Thus they say:

“Had there not been shed the pure blood of these men of liberty, equality and justice; and had there not been the self gleaming path of God and its devotees, today we would have thought Islam and the spirit of Quran and Prophet’s traditions to be in the royal court of Uthman, sycophant courtiers, deceptive people, the Green palace of Muawiyah and his murder agents, the ignorant days’ arrogance and Arab bigotry. Not in the astonishing life of Ali and not in the simplicity, equality and freedom of the government of Abu Bakr and Umar.”!7

In continuation of this same text written as preface to the book of Hujr bin Adi, we read in the footnote:

“Here the criticism of Shia narrated from Ali’s tongue that personifies the spirit of Islam, is accurate and detailed. But no historian having a least information about world politics will ever judge the government of these two renowned companions of Prophet at the scale of Choesroe’s and Caesar’s governments. He cannot resist admiring these governments. The only misfortune of these two, Abu Bakr and Umar, was that their rival was Ali an extraordinary man. Historians judge them at the level of Ali and hence condemn them.

If there were no Ali the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been recognized as the best government in the world and a model.”!8

Regarding the analysis of the question why Iran displayed its weakness when the soldiers entered, we read:

“It is quite obvious as to why: Umar was then the Caliph and advisors and commanders were close companions of Prophet. (continuation of the footnote). Indeed, in comparison to Ali they did have shortcomings and weakness. However, comparing to Sassanides and Rome they were paragons of freedom and justice in the eyes of non-Muslims.”!9

Therefore, it seems necessary to scrutinize the system current in those days in order to provide information to our Shia youths. It is a dire necessity of the day that they, our youths, should become strong and powerful with knowledge to be able to answer such conjectures or not fall a prey to these conjectures. They should be acquainted with relative historical documents to make their answers weighty with reason and evidence. We will to try to prove here to our youths that Caliphs within themselves were not bound to any teaching of Islam. They wanted Islam only to the extent of their interests to have a ground to put their foot. They needed Islam as much as they needed power because Islam gave them a ground to establish their power. Therefore when necessary to their own interests they did not hesitate to crush under their feet principles and fundamentals of freedom and justice. On most occasions, they too acted as Romans and Sassanides. The only difference was that their rule was in a guise and name of Islam. From one side the name of Islam covered their real horrible designs and from the other side dishonest historians did not record the truth. Therefore, it vanished from the history also. The record of thirteen years’ tyrant rule was wiped out from the annals. Therefore, we face a great many difficulties on way of research; we face many shortages and lack of documents. For instance:

“Ahmad bin Hanbal in his book Al Ilal (The Causes) says: Abu Awana10 in his book had recorded the defects of the companions of Prophet of God. Salam bin Abi Mutee came to him and said: Give this book to me. Abu Awana gave to him the book. Salam took and burnt it.11

Ahmad bin Hanbal in the same book has narrated from Abdur Rahman bin Mahdi that: I seek forgiveness of Allah for having seen the book of Abu Awana.12

He seeks God’s forgiveness for having seen the book. And another one takes the book and burns it without the owner’s permission.

In the biography of Abdul Rahman bin Kharash is written that he had recorded the defects of Abu Bakr and Umar in two volumes.

In the biography of Husayn bin Hasan Ashqar it is mentioned: Ahmad bin Hanbal has narrated traditions from him and said that no one has called him a liar.

Someone told Ahmad bin Hanbal that Husayn bin Hasan Ashqar narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar and that he had a separate chapter in his book in this regard.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said that he (Ashqar) was no more competent and trustworthy to be quoted traditions from.13

Where are those two parts or chapters about defects of Abu Bakr and Umar?

Why nothing from its contents is narrated and reached us?

As soon as Ahmad bin Hanbal understood that Husayn bin Hasan Ashqar has narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar he changes his opinion. Ashqar, all of a sudden becomes a liar, unreliable and untrustworthy. He is not worth relating from. Why? But why!

In the biography of many great tradition scholars except the authors of Sihah Sitta it is mentioned:

They used to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. For instance, see the biographies of Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,14 Taleed bin Sulaiman,15 and Ja’far Ibn Sulaiman al-Zabyee16 and others.17

In the middle of third century curse and abuse of Abu Bakr and Umar was a common practice. Zaid bin Qadama who lived in that period (3rd Century) writes:

What a time has come! People abuse Abu Bakr and Umar.18 This matter spread till in the Sixth Century prominent hadith scholar of Ahlul Sunnat Abdul Mughees bin Zuhair bin Harb Hanbali Baghdadi wrote a book in praise of Yazid bin Muawiyah. He defended Yazid and prohibited cursing him (Yazid). The author of the book was asked why he had written it. He replied: To prevent the people from cursing the Caliphs.19

At the end of the eighth century we come across Taftazani. In Sharh al-Maqasid (Explanation of Purposes) he says:

If it is asked why some religious scholars consider Yazid eligible for curse but still consider it impermissible to curse him? In reply we say: It is so because that they may prevent cursing of persons beyond Yazid (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah etc.)20…”21

“In view of what we said, after necessary search in sources we first conclude that there are many scholars and writers of Sunni school who have written about the impolite and indecent behavior and conduct of companions of Prophet either during his lifetime or after his death. But these narrations are missing mostly due to various reasons. Or these narrations are distorted.

Ibn Adi, died 365 Hijra, writes about Ibn Kharash:

He wrote two volumes containing defects and shameful actions of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Then Ibn Adi regards it most reliable.22

In the biography of Abdul Razzaq bin Hamaam he writes after praising him very much:

He has many things by way of defects of some companions and Caliphs which I shall not mention in my book. He has mentioned excellences of the Prophet’s Household and shameful behavior of companions and Caliphs, which is hard to accept.

Ibn Adi considers this also reliable.23

Zahabi (d. 798 A.H.) in the biographies of Abu Sult Haravi24 and Rawajini25 and similarly Ibn Hajar (d. 852 A.H.) in the biography of Ja’far bin Sulaiman26 have mentioned the defects of Caliphs. According to them it is a weakness to mention the defects of companions and Caliphs.

In his Sahih, Muslim has mentioned:

Abdullah bin Mubarak used to say in public: Do not narrate anything from the tongue of Umar bin Thabit because he speaks ill of companions.27

In this regard we can refer to biographies of Ahmad bin Muhammad Ibn Saeed bin Uqda,28 Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,29 Taleed bin Sulaiman,30 Qadasi,31 Amr bin Shimr,32 Muhammad bin Abdullah Shaibani,33 Ziyad bin Mundhir34 and others.35

Why did they curse Abu Bakr and Umar?
Did a narration or narrations reach them that encouraged them to curse them and themselves gave permission to curse the First and Second Caliph? Now where have those narrations and matters gone?”36

“The information certainly was within books. So what happened to those books?

Did they meet some other fate? Ahmad bin Hanbal says that the books were burnt. Whether all that information is locked in boxes of bigotry and obduracy? Or it is concealed in obstinacy and stubbornness? It is another tyranny that made such rare information inaccessible.

Zahabi writes:

Though writings and books are full of texts that convey disputes, brawls and skirmishes among companions, however at the same time some stories are short of documents and proofs. We must hide them. We must destroy them. This will pave way to make the people to love companions. People must be made pleased with them.

Concealing such matters is compulsory on all generally and on the scholars especially…37”38

This reflects to our readers how difficult has become the job of scrutiny or research into history of the thirteen years since passing away of Prophet. Therefore, it must be said:

Discussions in this book have limited scope and from the whole it is very little. This clearly shows that Islam served their own interest and was a tool to them to do what they wanted. They had no belief in its teachings. The enthusiastic reader will shift from plain thinking towards Caliphs’ government under the title of Islam to the depths of thought. If one performs a postmortem of those days one will see the cause of illness of Islam and the reason for its decline. Then he will be able to reach a correct and accurate judgment.

Analysis of Honorable Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi about the reign of Caliphs

Analysis of Honorable Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi about the reign of Caliphs 39

“It might not be out of place here to remind them by way of admonishment. We mean the simple-minded people.

Sometimes we hear and read appreciations of deeds of the first category hypocrites of early days of Islam. They made wars and expanded territories of Islam. They extended far and wide the rule of Quran and laws of Islam. They lived a simple life. They were humble and were not worldly men. They hated the world and its enchantments. Such a show demonstrated by those hypocrites, indeed, has gone a long way to deceive many simple-minded people. They believe that it was a service to Islam and Muslims. It was propaganda in name of Islam disseminated by them. Therefore, they consider those hypocrites worthy of praise. These simple-minded believe that a good deed should be praised and a bad one censured.

We have this to comment to tell them in reply to such thinking and such conclusions:

First you must know the wrong or sin in usurping something which does not belong to one. The office of Caliphate was already made known by the Prophet as to whom it belongs. But this was snatched away in a plot designed since long and in secrecy. The infallible Imam was set aside. In other words, he was discarded. Caliphate, which belonged to Ali by Divine command, was against God’s orders taken from Ali. This action ended in undesired consequences which contrast to God’s obvious orders and His Prophet’s instructions and teachings. By so doing, they changed the straight path of Islam shown by God and the Prophet. They indulged the society into misfortune and perversion. Everything went wrong. The direction, which was towards heaven, was changed to hell.

If you could understand this crime and reach into its depths then only you can guess or at least imagine the dimensions resulted therefrom. You can hear its agonies from the tongue of history of Islam. You will then be able to see the real ugly faces of these betrayers hidden in the guise of Islam. They concealed their face of paganhood behind a veil of false Islam. There is no havoc that they did not bring to the Muslims. There no calamity they did not bring for Islam.

They led the Ummah to a horrible valley of darkness. You will understand that their good deeds too were not good. In those good actions were hidden several crimes. Their good actions were their additional crimes, harmful and hurtful to mankind.

Suppose: A cheater comes to you. By a trick, he occupies your house and expels you from there. Then he behaves as if he is the real master of everything. He expands the house and builds it in the way he wants. He decorates and paints it after his own taste. This rogue got hold of your house by force and fraud, by trick and tyranny. So his later actions such as building and rebuilding and decorating the house would be regarded by you as service to you? Would you be indebted to him? Would you owe any gratitude to him? Of course not! It is usurpation. It is immoral. It is a transgression. It is regarded a sin, a crime, a tyranny.

In the same way we know that they forcibly occupied the seat and place of the Prophet and laid hands on the Prophet’s pulpit and niche. Their outward show was their good actions that they fought against pagans and the tribes of Arabs and Ajam (non-Arab).

They also waged wars and occupied countries where they hoisted the Islamic flag. They posed themselves as protectors of justice and guards of Islamic territories. They showed themselves as executors of Divine laws. In this respect, they even scourged their own son for his wrong or sin. But any of their deeds, however admirable, was not to the pleasure of God. From the root it was wrong. It originated from illegitimacy. They first robbed and from usurpation, they spent on good things. Therefore, they did not deserve reward. They stand answerable for their very first step – that is their occupation of the Prophet’s seat which should have been occupied by his rightful successor, Ali. Their every good deed shall be counted as a sin for them.

One who, without having the capability and divine permission claimed to be Prophet’s successor, which is a divine office (caller towards Allah), in the view of Quran he is the greatest liar and most unjust being and will be liable to the most terrible punishments and most serious chastisements; even though from the position of the usurped pulpit and prayer niche in a show of piety delivers lectures of guidance calling people to god-worship, truth, honesty, trustworthiness and fear of God. And he makes war on the infidels and defeats them widening the territories of Islam and bringing countries under the banner of Quran!

Possibly the simple-minded people on the basis of this outward show could have accepted them as contributors to Islam and Quran. But their real features with real identities are seen by those who have insight and look deeply into issues. The lack of leadership of an infallible Imam was the cause of these fatal results that the tyrant Caliphs prepared ground for peoples’ negative thinking. They made people to doubt about the divine religion. They posed Islam as a tool to expand territories and to gain worldly purposes. Islam was looked upon not as a religion but a reason to rule and govern.”40

- 1. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 17, (9000 copies), Spring 83, Pg. 14.

- 2. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, (copies not mentioned), Summer 79, Pg. 30; Bani Khatam wa Deen-e-Kamil (1st Edition 1379), Pgs. 102-103.

- 3. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pgs. 49-50.

- 4. Ibid. Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 101.

- 5. Ibid. Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 139.

- 6. Ibid. Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 244.

- 7. Dr. Ali Shariati: Husayn Warith-e-Adam (Collected Writings 19), 1st Edition Pg. 356.

- 8. Ibid. Husayn Warith-e-Adam (Collected Writings 19), Pg. 356.

- 9. Dr. Ali Shariati: Tarikh O Shanakht-e-Adyan (Collected Writings 15), Vol. 2, (8th Edition 1381), Pg. 18.

- 10. Abu Awana was a prominent Hafiz and scholar of Ahlul Sunnat.

- 11. Quoted from: Al-Ilal war-Rijaal, Vol. 1, Pg. 60.

- 12. Quoted from: Al-Ilal war-Rijaal, Vol. 3, Pg. 92 (New Edition).

- 13. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pg. 291.

- 14. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, Pg. 274.

- 15. Quoted from: Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 4, Pg. 322.

- 16. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pgs. 82-83.

- 17. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pgs. 38-40.

- 18. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 3, Pg. 264 From his statement it seems that talking about the defects of Caliphs was a common practice in those days.

- 19. Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 21, Pg. 161.

- 20. Quoted from: Sharh Maqasid, Vol. 5, Pg. 311.

- 21. Ibid. Pgs. 41-42.

- 22. Quoted from: Al-Kamil fee Zo’fa ar-Rijaal, Vol. 5, Pg. 519.

- 23. Quoted from same source, Vol. 6, Pg. 545.

- 24. Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 11, Pgs. 447-448.

- 25. Quoted from same source, Vol. 11, Pgs. 537-538.

- 26. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 2, Pg. 83.

- 27. Quoted from: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 12.

- 28. Quoted from: Al-Kashful Hadith, Pg. 70.

- 29. Quoted from: Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, Vol. 1, Pgs. 273-274.

- 30. Quoted from same source, Vol. 1, Pg. 447.

- 31. Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 18, Pg. 12.

- 32. Quoted from: Lisanul Mizan,, Vol. 4, Pg. 366.

- 33. Quoted from same source, Vol. 5, Pg. 231.

- 34. Quoted from: Al-Majrooheen (By Ibn Hibban), Vol. 1, Pg. 302; Refer: Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 10, Pg. 136 & Vol. 21, Pg. 594.

- 35. Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Bibliography of Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima, Pgs. 186-188.

- 36. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pg. 40.

- 37. Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 10, Pgs. 92-93.

- 38. Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Bibliography of Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima, Pg. 190.

- 39. This text is included with permission from the author.

- 40. Extract from Dar Justujoo-e-Ilm-e-Deen (In search of religious knowledge), Pgs. 165-182.

Introduction: Claim Of Righteous Caliphate Is Untrue

Before we scrutinize praises about government and personalities of Caliphs, let us see what Righteous Caliphate is, which is claimed by today’s defenders of Caliphs and their government.

What we grasp from the writing of this group is this:

“Righteous Caliphate represents fully and completely the Prophet’s way of thinking, his thought, his attitude and his behavior.”!1

“In the period of Righteous Caliphate, Caliphs totally represented the Prophet’s thought and attitude. And even displayed his way of life.”!2

We ignore the evidence and historical documents as to what extent and what length they go to establish this claim. We even ignore whether the documents belie the claim totally. What we want in this preface is to awaken the readers from their somnolence towards such expressions and distorted belief of Sunni sect about the position of prophethood and personality of the Seal of prophets.3 We only want to have a short reference to the verbal outlook of Sunni scholars regarding the position of Caliph. We would like to scrutinize their display of Caliphs’ personality and criticize what is demonstrated in relation to the reader’s mentality about the Prophet’s pristine personality. It is this image that naturally strikes the reader’s mind and it is our object to mend or erase it totally therefrom.

In anticipation of a correct outlook from our reader on these conjectures, we discuss prophethood. In the meantime, we shall dwell on the outlook of prominent scholars of Sunni sect in the field of Caliphate. Our discussion will prove that this Sunni school acknowledges that scandalous and most detested qualities did exist in the person of Caliph. But the said school does not consider such undesired qualities an impediment for one to become a Caliph. Such mentality incites them to lower the station of the Prophet. It is easy for them to bring down the position of the Prophet from its actual standard. Therefore, this group of writers cannot claim that Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar mirror every detail of the Prophet4 – that too prophethood based on a sound reason and pristine human nature. However, in the mind of the reader such essays do impart its effect and influence. This can only be eschewed if the writer makes known his perverted beliefs in prophethood beforehand. They draw similarity between prophethood (of their own creation) and Caliphate: Caliphate, which is:

A) Qadi Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Tayyab Baqilani (d. 403 Lunar) writes in his book Al-Tamheed that this school allows its followers to believe him in place of the Prophet as his Caliph in spite of his sins, low moral and corrupted personality. He adds:

“A Caliph cannot be deposed because of his atrocities, confiscation of people’s properties, lashing innocent people and not respecting and protecting rights of people.”5

B) Saad al-Din, Masood bin Umar Taftazani (d. 792 Lunar) writes in his book Sharh al-Aqaid al-Nasafiya:

“A Caliph cannot be deposed or dismissed from his position because of his sins, corruption and tyranny.”6

He writes in this book Sharh al-Maqasid:

“When a Caliph dies and a person having qualifications of Imamate – without getting allegiance or having been appointed by the previous Caliphs – forcibly takes the seat of Caliphate, the position of vicegerency of the Prophet will be established for him and in the same way – according to the view nearest to correctness – even if he is corrupt and ignorant… and the Caliph cannot be deposed on the ground of corruption and sins.”7

C) In addition to these two quotations, we add one more here from the book Al-Vikhaye Fi Fiqh al-Hanafia.8 This shows the identity of the Caliph in the Sunni school:

“If the Caliph drinks wine the punishment prescribed by Shariah cannot be carried out on him because he is a representative of God.”9

Such statements in books of the School of Caliphate clearly show that from the viewpoint of this school there is on objection if the Caliph happens to be profane, perfidious, a sinner or an alcoholic also. This shows that their Caliphs were men of such qualities. They gave allowance from these bad qualities and exempted them from conditions that quality one for the office of Caliphate. Our reader can conceive what type of men they were who for thirteen years occupied the divine office of Caliphate.

According to the belief of this sect, a Caliph can be a tyrant. He can oppress the people and commit any sin he desires. He can snatch from the people’s belongings what attracts him; and can still remain Caliph of the Prophet of God. At the same time, they claim that Righteous Caliphate is a true representation of the Prophet in all respects.

On the basis, of this identification of the personality of the Caliph we conclude that neither the Caliph nor Caliphate carries remotest resemblance to the person of Prophet and prophethood. The real face of the Prophet is attractive, endearing, worthy of respect and regard while the office of prophethood is divine and awe-inspiring. However, Caliphate is not in line with prophethood because it is short of divine attributes and deprived of those high and glorious qualities of the Prophet. This is the reason that we witness no moral at all with the Caliph. Further, we see his enthusiasm to destroy that beautiful image of Prophet to have occupied his place. It is a false claim that his Caliphate is Rashida; that it is a true reflection of the Prophet’s character. It is a trap and a guise they are dressed in. It is a device to fool people. The claim provides them an excuse to prolong their rule and strengthen yoke on the necks of masses. They claim that their Righteous Caliphate reflects the face of the Prophet while they usurped his face as soon as he died.10

Now with this knowledge of intellectual bases of Ahlul Sunnat regarding the issue of Caliphate how can we trust the point of view of “Second revival of the system of Caliphate” which is expressed by the unity-mongers who think that this is the only possible solution for the present situation to bring Islamic unity? This is itself a question!!!

Can it be accepted that:

“…The system of Caliphate of Sunni sect can bring unity among Muslims and in all Islamic countries…”!11

To acquaint you further with the outlook of the enthusiasts of this movement in the Islamic world we quote here the epitome of their thought:

“Modern historians, both western and Muslims, cannot refrain themselves from praising the Second Caliph of Prophet Muhammad. They consider his Caliphate as a consummate and complete Caliphate. The Sunni sect particularly is of such a belief. They (the Sunnis) think that Quranic principles were carried out by Umar. He laid the foundation of the leadership of society on the basis of religious politeness. He catered to the aspirations of Islam. They consider it a renovation of Caliphate on democratic basis.”!12

- Mirza Rizayee Kermani narrates from Sayyid Jamaluddin Asadabadi (1254-1314 Lunar) that he (Sayyid Jamaluddin) used to say:

“The difference of word Ali and Umar must be kept aside and then one must look at Caliphate.”13

- Shaikh Muhammad Abduh (1266-1323 Lunar), considered the greatest student of Sayyid Jamal, in totality repeats the views of his teacher, in a more refined way.

Even though political views of Abduh are not so liberal as his thoughts about reform of religion but he seems to be a believer in principle of Caliphate and its central position.14

“He bases his sociology and psychology on things that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab had invited the people to.

Shaykh Muhammad Abduh was supported in his view by Sayyid Muhammad Rasheed Riza, a close friend and a devoted pupil who published ‘Al Munar’ magazine and disseminated his thoughts in the world.”15

- Muhammad Rasheed Riza (1354-1382 Lunar) a close student of Abduh considered Caliphate as the best means to achieve Islamic unity. He was a defender of early Caliphate. That is the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar and some Bani Umayyah persons like Umar bin Abdul Aziz.16 To him these Caliphs were paragons.17

- Abdur Rahman Kaukabi (1271-1320 Lunar) another pupil of Sayyid Jamal was also a supporter of early Caliphate. It was a model to him. Islamic unity was possible through that Caliphate.18

- Hasan Banna (1368 Lunar), founder of Muslim Brotherhood too, like Rasheed Riza was an advocate of Islamic Caliphate. What Muslim Brotherhood wanted from the theory of Islamic government is the same idea of Rasheed Riza but in a stronger sense.19

At the end of this short introduction, we would like to remark that historical documents indicate that differences even existed between Abu Bakr and Umar. Contradictory to general belief there existed a wide gulf between the two in their aims, motives, political programs, way of thinking and the method.

“The apparent behavior of those two can be only considered as a political program framed in accordance to the demands of time.”20

Historical evidences that show a deep gulf between the thoughts of the First Caliph who differed in his practice with the second in dimensions of gaining power and exercising his influence in society. This difference stretched and attained two different identities, which can be said to be opposed to each other.

A) “Saeed bin Jubair narrates: Someone mentioned the name of Abu Bakr and Umar in the presence of Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab.

Another in the group said: By God they were the sun and light for the Ummah.

Abdullah bin Umar asked: How did you derive this conclusion?

The man said that they were allies in Caliphate.

Ibn Umar said that it was not so. On the contrary they had differences among themselves. One day I was with my father when he restricted from seeing any. In the meantime, Abdur Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see my father. My father said: This is also a bad four-legged crawler. But in spite of it, he is better than his father.

My father’s words horrified me. I asked: Is Abdur Rahman better than his father?

My father said: O motherless! Who is there not better than his father! Ask him to enter…

After Abdur Rahman went away my father turned to me and said: Until today you were in ignorance about the things in which this great fool of Bani Teem (Abu Bakr) went ahead of me and the tyranny he did to me.

I said: I had no knowledge of this.

My father said: I had not expected you to know it.

I said: He (Abu Bakr) is dearer to the people than the light of their eyes.

My father said: Yes, it is so in spite of your father’s anger.

I said: O father, don’t you want to disclose the secret to the public?

My father said: How it could be possible when the people love him more than the light of their own eyes? If I do so people would not believe me. And as a consequence, they would break my head with a rock. Later my father showed courage and on Friday told the people: Know that! Allegiance of Abu Bakr was a job done in haste and without thought. God saved the people from it evil. You must kill whoever invites you to do Bay’at like Abu Bakr.”21

B) Shareek bin Abdullah Nakhayee narrates from Abu Moosa Ashari that he (Abu Moosa) went to Hajj in the company of Umar. When we arrived Mecca, says Abu Moosa, I wanted to see Umar. Therefore, he went to the place he had chosen for his residence. On the way, he met Mughaira bin Shoba. He too wanted to meet Umar. So, we both followed the same way. On the way, we talked about Umar and his reaching to Caliphate. The talk brought within its folds Abu Bakr. I told Mughaira that Abu Bakr was insistent upon Umar becoming Caliph. Mughaira attested my view. He added that the people were not inclined to Umar to become Caliph. They had hatred towards Umar. They viewed no benefit to them in his Caliphate.

I asked him who opposed Umar? Mughaira said: O, Abu Moosa! As if you don’t know to what extent the tribe of Quraish is jealous. Here Quraish means the tribe of Teem. Abu Bakr belongs to this tribe. If jealousy could be split into ten parts, nine would go to Quraish and remaining to all the people.

I told Mughaira to be silent. He seemed to ignore the favor of Quraish to the people and the people were indebted to them. We were busy talking and in the meantime, we reached the residence of Umar. He was not there. We were told that he had just left. From there we went to the sacred Mosque and saw Umar going around the Kaaba, so we also started doing the same.

When he finished, he came and stood among us leaning on Mughaira. He asked where we were coming from. We said that we wanted to see him, since he was not there we came here. Mughaira looked at me and laughed. Umar did not seem pleased with his laughing; and asked why he laughed. Mughaira said that he was talking on his way with Abu Moosa, at which I laughed then Umar asked what the matter was. We narrated to him the subject on which we had talked and told him the views exchanged between us over jealousy of Quraish. Then we told him about one who had approached Abu Bakr to persuade him to abstain from nominating Umar to Caliphate. Umar then sighed a long sigh and said: May your mother wail for you, Mughaira. Nine out of ten; what? It is nothing. It is ninety-nine out of hundred. Ninety-nine would go to this group of Quraish and the remaining one to others. And in that one too Quraish shares with others. Umar was calmed down to a certain extant after saying that sentence. Then he (Umar) asked: So, you want me to inform you about the most jealous of Quraish? We asked to him to do. He asked: How that could be possible when you are wearing clothes. We asked him what connection it had with our clothes. He said: I am afraid the secret might creep out of the cloak. We said that he must have meant us. He said it was true. So we all together went to his (Umar’s) residence.

He pulled out his hands from us and entered but asked us to remain outside. In the meantime, I told Mughaira that our conversation seemed to have influenced him. Since he asked us to wait here because perhaps he would say the rest to us. He said that we too were after the same. We were asked to come in and we entered. We saw that Umar was relaxing stretched on his back. He again asked us to respect the secret. We again assured him not to worry in this respect. Then he got up to close the door. A guard was standing at the door. Umar ordered him to go; and he went. He closed the door came and sat in our company. He asked us to repeat the question in order to hear the answer from him. We reminded him that he had told us that he would inform us who the most jealous one among Quraish was. He answered that we had asked the most difficult thing. He proceeded and said that we should not disclose it as long as he was alive.

Abu Moosa says that he thought to himself that the reason for his grievance could be Talha and Zubair because they did not like Umar to be Caliph. They had even told Abu Bakr not to nominate him. From subsequent words I understood that he meant someone else. Umar sighed again. We told him that whatever we know was only supposition. Umar asked against whom our supposition was. We said that they were those who had asked Abu Bakr to not make Umar a Caliph.

Umar said: No. by God, it is not so. It is Abu Bakr himself – the most jealous of Quraish.

Then Umar cast his head down for a long time. I looked at Mughaira and Mughaira stared at me. We too cast our heads down. Silence prevailed for a long time. We guessed that Umar was sorry for telling us the secret. Then Umar continued: How sad! This man of no weight at all from Bani Teem! He advanced his own gain and pushed me behind. He committed tyranny and a sin against me, made me lag behind.

Mughaira said: O Chief! We know what you say, but we don’t know how he kept you behind by sin?

Umar said: Abu Bakr did not do that till I lost hope in Caliphate because I knew that people were not with me. I pushed him ahead. Otherwise he would have never enjoyed the sweet taste of Caliphate. Had I obeyed my own brother, Yazid bin Khattab it would have been far better to me. I lifted him high. I supported him. I got Caliphate confirmed in his favor. I made simple for him the issue of Caliphate. I closed every trouble-creating issue for him. When he got the job, he adhered to it blindly without a thought of me. Alas! Hell to me! I was hoping the government will turn its face toward me. By God, Abu Bakr did not gain anything besides the measure a sparrow needs to be fed. He lost that too ultimately.

Mughaira said: What was the obstacle in your reaching to Caliphate. On the day of Saqifah, Abu Bakr offered Caliphate to you. You yourself returned it to him and now you feel sorry for it.

Umar said: May your mother lament for you. I thought you are one of the shrewdest and cleverest Arabs, but now it seems that you have no knowledge of what happened there. This man played a trick on me. So I too cheated him. He found me cleverer than a hen that eats stones.

Umar further added: When Abu Bakr saw the welcome of the people to him he became sure that they will not prefer anyone. He was very much anxious to know my mind then. He wanted to know whether I would campaign against him. Whether I would surrender to my inner inclination to Caliphate? He wanted to test me by inciting me towards the position. For this reason, he offered the Caliphate to me. On the other hand he very well knew and I too know that if he had surrendered Caliphate to me people would have never complied and responded favorably. In spite of my deep attachment to that position, he (Abu Bakr) found me clever and also circumspect. Though I might have given a positive answer to attain that office but people would have prevented it to reach me. Abu Bakr would have reserved in his heart implacable hatred and rancor against me. I would never have been safe from him. I came to know that people hate me.

Umar continued his talk and finally said: Didn’t you hear people were shouting: O Abu Bakr! We don’t want anyone other than you. You are befitting one to Caliphate.

Finally he said: When he heard people calling his name he became so glad that he became invigorated. I do not forget the envy Abu Bakr had against me. Someone had backbitten me to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had scolded me. The story is not new. Ashath was captured and brought before Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr did a favor to him and set him free. He even gave his sister in marriage to him. I visited Abu Bakr when Ashath was sitting with him. I told Ashath: O Enemy of God! You became apostate after having become a Muslim. You have turned back and taken the way of denial.

Ashath looked at me seriously. I thought he wanted to talk to me. But in his view, the time was not suitable. After sometime, he met me in a by lane of Medina and asked whether it was I who had told those words. Umar said: Yes, it was me. Further Umar told him that the punishment awaiting him was more detrimental and pernicious than the sentence he had uttered.

Ashath said: I am very much distressed because of you because you are compelled to be a follower of Abu Bakr. I swear by God, that which made me disobey Abu Bakr was his getting ahead of you in Caliphate. Had you been the Caliph you would never have seen any insurgency from me.

Umar: Yes, it is so. Now what do you advise me?

Ashath: Now is not the time to advise. It is time to be patient.

Umar said that they separated after that much conversation. Ashath on his way met Zibirqaan bin Badr and narrated the whole conversation to him. He too had filed a request with Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr wrote a letter to Umar expressing his anger, sorrow and censure. Umar too replied to Abu Bakr in the following words:

I swear by God! I will prevent you from continuing this job or I will reveal the secret that is between me and you. If the horse riders heard it they will disseminate it along the route they traverse and at the destination they arrive. In this current condition, if you want, let us be at forgiveness towards each other. The secret too will remain unrevealed.

After this letter, Abu Bakr told Umar: We should remain on terms as before. This Caliphate too will be yours shortly.

Umar added: After these words of Abu Bakr I thought that he will return me Caliphate before Friday passes between us. But he did not care. He did not even refer to this matter. He never mentioned it any more until he died. As long as he was Caliph, he never paid attention to his words. He always pressed his teeth due to the excess of malice and envy towards me until he died and was disappointed that he will no more be a Caliph.

Please keep secret from people particularly from Bani Hashim whatever I told you. Do not disclose it at all. Now if you like you may go.

We got up and left amazed at what we had heard. By God, we did not disclose his secret until he was killed.”22

- 1. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 30.

- 2. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pgs. 30-31.

- 3. For Example: Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 4 of collection of Naqsh translated and published separately), Role of the Imams in Revival of Religion, Vol. 1-7.

- 4. Title of article in Issue No. 2 from Nida-e-Islam Magazine.

- 5. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pg. 21.

- 6. Ibid. Pg. 24.

- 7. Ibid. Pg. 21.

- 8. Apparently the title of the original book is Waqayatur Rawaya fee Masail al-Hidayah, by Mahmood bin Ubaidullah Mahboobi (died around 673 Lunar Year) about the Hanafite Fiqh. (Refer: Kashfuz Zunoon, Vol. 6, Pg. 406; Hadiyatul Aarifeen, Vol. 2, Pg. 406; Mojam al-Moallifeen, Vol. 12, 178).

- 9. Ibid. Pg. 23.

- 10. For more details refer to Al-Imamah fee Ahaammal Kutub al-Kalaamiya wa Aqeedatush Shiatul Imamiyah by Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani.
This book is a criticism of discussions on Imamate and Caliphate in three books of Ahlul Sunnah: Sharh Mawaqif, Sharh Maqasid and Sharh Aqaid Nasafiya.

- 11. Sayyid Ahmad Mawassaqi: Istiratazi-e-Wahdat (Strategy of Unity), Vol. 2, Pg. 106.

- 12. Wilfred Madelung: Succession to Muhammad, Pg. 109.

- 13. Nazim-ul-Islam Kermani: Tarikh-e-Bedaari-e-Iraniaan (History of Iranian Awakening), Vol. 1, Pgs. 114-115; Dr. Sayyid Ja’far Shaheedi in his article titled, ‘Wahdat-e-Gumshudai Ke Bayad Yaft, Amma Che Gune Wa Az Kuja?’ printed in the book ofKitab-e-Wahdat; have accepted the authenticity of this historical quotation.

- 14. Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Seeri Dar Andisha Siyasi Arab.

- 15. Ali Asghar Faqihi: Wahhabiyaan, Research and Study of the Beliefs of the Wahabis, Pgs. 407-408.

- 16. When Umar bin Abdul Aziz used to study under his maternal uncle, Ubaidullah bin Umar bin Khattab in Medina, he himself used to talk ill of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a).
Ibn Asakir in his Tarikh Damishq has written about the enmity of Umar bin Abdul Aziz to Ahlul Bayt (‘a) in the report of his entry into Medina:
Abdul Aziz was appointed by the Syrian regime as the governor of Egypt. He sent his son Umar, who was named after his maternal grandfather to Medina for studies. The narrator says that when he arrived in Medina and entered the Prophet’s mosque, people remarked: The s inner has sent his son to obtain knowledge so that later he may act as the successor of Umar bin Khattab and act on his practice.

The narrator says: By Allah! We saw that he became a Caliph and acted on the practice of his grandfather.

(Husayn Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) wa Zumar Hadith Fadak, Pgs. 63-64; quoting from Tarikh Madina Damishq, Vol. 45, Pgs. 136-137; Tahdhib al-Kamal, Vol. 14, Pg. 118; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 5, Pg. 116)

From this aspect it can be said that ban on the practice of abusing His Eminence Ali (‘a) from the pulpits in force since the time of Muawiyah by Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz was a diplomatic move to strengthen the weakening Umayyad empire.

- 17. Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Seeri Dar Andisha Siyasi Arab.

- 18. Refer: Muhammad Jawad Sahibi: Tabiyat Istibdaad.

- 19. Refer: Dr. Hamid Inayat: Tafakkur Nuyin Siyasi Islam.

- 20. Hashmatullah Qambari Hamadani: Israar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada (Secrets and relics of Saqifah Bani Saada), Pg. 71.

- 21. Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 139-140; quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pgs. 28-29.

- 22. Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 140-147; quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pgs. 30-34.

Discourse 1: Piety And Simplicity Scrutinized

Motive of Caliphs’ Piety

“People contemporary to the Prophet had become familiar and habituated to plain living. Besides, people were very much happy and gratified that their leader was living a simple life. This had become a particularity, a distinction and a standard of a leader.

If one in his worldly life used to adopt piety and keep himself from extravagance, ate simple food and wore coarse clothes, even though he did not have other qualifications of leadership, he was considered most qualified for leadership.”1

Accordingly, it was natural that Caliphs should have adopted this way of life, which gives them a hand to deceive people and attain legitimacy to their usurped Caliphate. This weak point in public opinion had been of much benefit to Caliphs to draw from it as much advantage as they could in political and social aspects. Whatever capacity they had, they exerted efforts to abstain from worldly luxuries and comforts. This was a tool to deceive people. By doing so they got the pleasure of governing people – Arabs and non- Arabs.

The type of life they lived gave them required strength and needed ability to cheat and deceive people to an extent, which provided them a stand among them and brought the public opinion to their absolute favor. Such a gain on their part went a long way to silence people when the First Caliph confiscated Fadak and when the Second Caliph brought new things into religion that had not existed in the Prophet’s lifetime. Because:

“Abu Bakr and Umar did not very much take benefits from the Public Treasury. On the basis of this, people thought that if the Caliph confiscated one’s property or wealth it was not that he wanted to increase his own wealth.

People like that their rulers not be strict towards them in collecting taxes. And if the public pays taxes, the money should not be used for personal expenditure.”2

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli narrates in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha what his teacher. Abu Ja’far Naqeeb had told about the deep influence of pious-looking politicians:

“The style that Abu Bakr and Umar had adopted in their political life attracted peoples’ general admiration because they distanced themselves from worldly riches and adopted piety, though a feign one.3 They eschewed worldly decorations and greatness. They showed as if they are at a distance from worldly gains. They sufficed with a little of it. For food, they sufficed on very simple food. In clothes, they chose very coarse cloth. Whenever they got any worldly profit they divided it among the people. They did not corrupt themselves with worldly riches. This issue played a great part in attracting peoples’ hearts towards them. Caliphs remained always in good books of people and in their good will. Those who had a little doubt in their hearts said to themselves:

Had they been opponents of Prophet’s orders it would have been for their personal benefit. Some or other attachment to world could have been seen in them.

How they opposed the Prophet’s command and [at the same time] eschewed worldly pleasures; so they spoiled for themselves both the worlds. Would a man with a little sense do it?

It was this issue that left no doubt in anyone with regard to their actions;4 they trusted their rulership and approved their character.

But people neglected one point in their calculations that is the pleasure of being in power. Being at the helm of affairs and ruling people and steering the government is itself a great luxury and a great gain.5 For this, everything is sacrificed. Food and other things are of no importance for those who are after greater aims. Thus the poet says:

Some ignored the pleasure of riches.
But they did not ignore the pleasure of commanding and prohibition.

Abu Ja’far Naqeeb says: The difference of the two Caliphs with the third was the cause that the third was killed that way. People had deposed him. Uthman thought that he and his family has a share in the public belongings. Whatever does not belong to him and his family, he thought that it should belong to him. When it belongs to him, it belongs to his family too. If Uthman also had followed the system of his predecessors and kept his family away from public treasury, people would have been at his side. Even if he had changed the direction of prayers from Kaaba to Jerusalem or if he had reduced the five-time prayers to four, people would not have objected and none would have criticized him…”6

According to this analysis, we can understand the reason of peoples’ silence against innovations of the Second Caliph. Whatever wrong the Caliph did, it was regarded within a religious framework even by the Prophet’s Companions, even though it be against the Prophet’s practice.

Political Piety

Although it is claimed:

“He was so pious and God-fearing that he did not appoint Saeed bin Zaid in the consulting (Shura) committee because he was his cousin.”!7

But it must be said: The fake piety that he had created around himself brought him popularity among the people. Through this means, he gained legitimacy for his Caliphate. He adopted the same policy in appointment of government staff.

Both Abu Bakr and Umar avoided giving jobs in government at low or high levels to their relatives and close ones – no matter how befitting or qualified they be for that job. This trick reflected among the people their piety and fear of God.8

Of course some exceptions were there:

A) Abu Moosa Ashari was an official of Umar in Basrah. Abdullah Ibn Umar was his son-in-law.9

B) Qadama bin Maz’oon was Abdullah bin Umar’s maternal uncle. He was Umar’s agent in Bahrain.10

Historical documents also show that Umar was well aware of the danger of appointing family members in government affairs. Therefore he avoided appointing his relatives and his dear ones.11 Instead, he appointed outsiders who had their tribal backings.

“It is said that Umar had predicted Uthman’s fate in the following words: If Uthman becomes Caliph, sons of Abi Muit12 and Umayyah13 will dominate people. He will place public revenue at their disposal. I swear by God, if he reaches to Caliphate he will certainly do what I have said. Arabs will riot against him such that they will kill him in his own house.”14

How come Umar frame a committee of six persons and gave such powers to Ibn Auf15 so that it was sure that Uthman would become the Caliph? This is a question that can only be answered by Umar himself.

Piety or Public Deception

The following document shows that it was Umar’s trick to deceive people by the cloak of piety he had donned. It was to protect himself from peoples’ objection. Because historical sources say:

“Hurmuzan16 asked Umar: Do you allow me to cook food for Muslims?

Umar said: I am afraid you won’t be able to.

Hurmuzan: No. I can.

Umar: Then, the choice is yours.

Hurmuzan cooked food in various tastes of different varieties – sweet, pinching, sore, mild and hot. He came to Umar and informed him that the food was prepared. He invited Umar to come and eat the food.

Umar stood in the middle of the mosque and said loudly:

O, Muslims! I am a messenger of Hurmuzan to you. Then Muslims followed Umar. When Umar reached the house of Hurmuzan, he stopped at the door and said:

Wait here. Then he entered the house alone. He asked: Bring the food that is cooked. I like to see it. Then Umar asked to bring a huge plate for him. The plate was given to him. He ordered to put the food from each variety in it. Then Umar mixed it.

Hurmuzan shouted: What are you doing. You spoiled the food because some is sweet and some is salty.

Umar answered: Do you want Muslims to change their opinion about me. After doing this, he asked Muslims to enter the house and eat the food.”17

Hypocritical Piety

One of the claims to prove the piety of Caliphs is this:

“To prove Abu Bakr’s piety in not utilizing the public funds and showing his dislike to worldly luxuries these two examples are enough:

One day household members of Abu Bakr asked him get sweets for them.

His wife suggested that she would save some money from daily expenses for a few days until it makes a sum. Abu Bakr accepted his wife’s suggestion. After a few days, a small amount was saved. This amount was given to Abu Bakr to buy sweets. Abu Bakr took the amount and surrendered it to the Public Treasury. He said to the official of funds that experience proved that the sum was more than domestic expenses. So he ordered the treasury to reduce his monthly allowance by the same amount. For the past months, he ordered to collect the sum from his personal property he had before becoming Caliph.”!18

“Another case: Abu Bakr in his last days sold the land he had bought during his Caliphate from the amount he had taken as his salary by consent of Muslims19 to be used by Caliph, and returned it to the Public Treasury. He also made a will that all amenities utilized by him as Caliph should be returned to treasury.”20

Before analysis, we would like to draw the attention of our readers to a historical document in which you will see for yourself that Abu Bakr himself has admitted that he cannot refrain from the world and its attractions. Yet they claim:

“Abu Bakr was a man most indifferent to the world.”21

“It is mentioned in Mustadrak Sahihain Vol. 4, Pg. 309 that Zaid bin Arqam narrated: We were with Abu Bakr when he asked for something to drink.

Water mixed with honey was brought for him.

He took the glass close to his lips and wept for a long time then he wiped his tears.

He was asked: O Caliph of Prophet of God, why are you weeping?

Abu Bakr: I was with the Prophet of God. I saw him driving away something, but there was no one to be seen.

I asked: O the Messenger of Allah! What is it that you are warding off from you?

He said: It was the world that came to me personified. I told it to go away from me. She (the world) cried and returned and said: Even though you may flee from me but he that would come in your place after you would not be able to leave me.

This same story Khateeb Baghdadi has written in the Tarikh Baghdad Vol. 10, Pg. 286 and Abu Naeem has written in Hilyat al-Awliya Vol. 1, Pg. 30. Both of them have mentioned this too that Abu Bakr told that he feared that the world might occupy him in its pleasures. Muttaqi has also written is Kanzul Ummal Vol. 4, Pg. 37 that Abu Bakr wept fearing the world would entrap him…”22

Analysis of this quotation brings three points to the fore:

A) This story is narrated by Sunni sources in their reliable books. If relation or mutual attachment between Abu Bakr and the world is accepted, it would contradict the claim of his being pious.

B) If the claim of Abu Bakr of the talk of the world with the Prophet were true then there comes the attachment of the world and Abu Bakr, which contradicts the claim of his piety.

C) If this talk between Abu Bakr and Muslims is true, it seems that the confession of Abu Bakr before Muslims and his companions in that particular way was a salient quality with him and was a covering over his extraordinary inclination towards the world. The Caliph (Abu Bakr) here has invented the tradition to confirm his Caliphate and at the same time his piety. He wants to establish his probity before the events of Saqifah. He wants to prove by this invention of his, close familiarity between him and the Prophet. This will give popularity to his Caliphate and justification to him for that post. In the tradition invented by him these worlds are very much meaningful “…he that will come in your place after you.” How can it be believed when in order to justify the usurpation of Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (‘a) they claim that the Prophet did not appoint anyone as his Caliph or successors?

The document leads us to a crossroad where one way leads to his confession of being worldly and enchanted by the world and the other is contrast in claim of his piety and fear of God, which compelled him to return public funds he had used during his Caliphate.

Abdullah, grandson of Abu Bakr (from his daughter), requested Asma, wife of Zubair, to recommend Abu Bakr. He was very much dear to Ayesha – his aunt.

His request from his grandfather Abu Bakr is interesting.

“When Abu Bakr became Caliph Abdullah was a youth. One day he came to Abu Bakr (his grandfather) and asked him to give him a huge piece of land. A hill too was in that land. Abu Bakr granted that big piece of land to his grandson to please him.

In Tarikh Ibn Asakir this story of wholehearted generosity of Abu Bakr to his own grandson, Abu Bakr bin Zubair is narrated as follows:

Abdullah requested his grandfather to give him a hill somewhere in Medina. Abu Bakr asked him what he wanted the hill for?

Abdullah answered: We had such a hill in Mecca. So, we want to have a similar thing in Medina also. Abu Bakr spotted out a suitable location and granted it to Abdullah. He built two bridges in that place but now there is no sign of them.”23

Such irresponsible utilization of public funds is recorded in the annals of history. On the other hand conjectures are invented to dress the Caliph in a guise of piety.

“It is also said that when Abu Bakr was dying he said to his daughter Ayesha: We had Muslim affairs in our hands. But you know that I did not take even one Dinar or Dirham from public funds by way of salary…”!24

In the same way we see the following claim repeated regarding the deprivation of family members and children of Caliph from minimum material needs through Abu Bakr:

“Abu Bakr adopted a life of piety since he became a Caliph. He took from public treasury the minimum amount in salary. His salary was not enough to purchase sweets for his wife and children. He lived such a stringent life at a time when conditions were improved, Islamic territories were stretched and expanded and the revenues too had increased.”25

On the other hand we hear this story from a girl grown and brought up in the house of Abu Bakr:

“Ayesha, in the days26 of the Prophet, had several dresses and cloaks of different designs and fashions while other wives of Prophet had simple dresses of cheap quality.

Ayesha also wore gold and other jewellery.

Even in the days of Hajj when costly dresses and ornaments are ignored and not used Mother of believers did not abstain.”27

Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari has shown documents in this respect, which he has utilized in his analysis. We quote a few here:

A) The author of Tabaqaat writes on the basis of the narration from Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (son of Ayesha’s brother): Ayesha wore costly cloaks – mostly of yellow color. She had costly rings, which she used to wear.

B) A Muslim woman named Shamsia narrates: One day I visited Ayesha and found her wearing a yellow dress and a yellow headscarf.

C) Son of Ayesha’s sister, Urwah bin Zubair narrates: Ayesha had an upper dress of silk. She used to wear it on occasions. Later she gave it to Abdullah bin Zubair.

D) After passing away of Prophet, Muhammad bin Ashath brought a present of a skin coat, which she used to wear in winter.

E) A Muslim lady named Amina says that she saw Ayesha wearing upper dress of red color and headscarf of black color.28

F) Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr says: Ayesha used to wear a yellow Hajj dress (Ihraam). At the time of Hajj, she performed Hajj wearing her gold ornaments and other costly things.29

The interesting thing is Ayesha wore such dresses and appreciated the dress of the ladies of Ansaar as a model for a Muslim lady. She says:

“I have not seen women better than the women of Ansaar. When this verse [verse of Hijab in Surah Noor] descended each one hurried to her woolen cloth, cut it and covered their heads with it as though a black crow was sitting on their heads.”30

Personal use of Public Funds

In the same way it is said that Abu Bakr lived a simple life and was very careful with public funds:

“Abu Bakr told his daughter, Ayesha, at the close of his death to surrender the camel, which he was riding and the bowl of his food and the gown he was wearing to the new Caliph who would succeed him. These things are prohibited to others than the Caliph.”!31

In reply to this we have to rely on historical documents that show how he lavished bribes from Muslims treasury on his opponents to obtain their support. It is the worst type of advantage that puts the piety of Caliph to question.

A) As you know the Prophet delegated Abu Sufyan to a certain district to collect Zakat. When Abu Sufyan returned to Medina the Caliphate of Ali was hijacked in the Saqifah conspiracy.

Abu Sufyan at first because of communal feelings proposed to Imam Ali (‘a) of his acknowledgement to him as the Caliph but after

“He got disappointed from Ali towards his own personal gains. On the other hand the government at that time was anxious for his campaign, which was in anticipation of government. Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him that Abu Sufyan had returned from his assignment. He warned Abu Bakr that they would not be safe from his mischief. The Prophet of God too, always treated him with care and affection for this very reason. Now he has some amount collected by him in Zakat. Although the amount with him belongs to the Public Treasury we should ignore the amount and give it to him to please him. Abu Bakr agreed and did the same.

Abu Sufyan was pleased and he paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.32

According to the narration of Tabari, Abu Sufyan did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr until he got the post of commander for his son, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan, to the army in Syria.33”34

“Our readers are aware of the fact that among them and Bani Umayyah chief (Abu Sufyan) there was no difference of views. I (the author)35 believe that contradictions in their behavior were a strategy to create divisions in society. There was no motive at all of any good among them.”36

B) Although it must be noted that diversion of public funds in such a way and bribing political adversaries was a common practice of Caliphs. Such misappropriation was in excess. They did it freely without fearing God. To prove this there are many historical documents but we quote here a few:

“When Abu Bakr was established in office he fixed salaries from public funds to Muhajireen and Ansaar women.

Share of a woman from Bani Adi bin al-Najjar was given to Zaid bin Thabit to deliver to her. Zaid went to her and presented the stipend. The woman asked him what it was for. Zaid told her that it was her share fixed by Abu Bakr. The woman replied: Do you want to take away my faith by this bribe? I swear by God, I will not accept anything from him.

The amount was returned to Abu Bakr.”37

This of course was not the first case and that woman, not the only woman to be bribed though she rejected. Such cases of expenditures that told on public funds are aplenty. Besides there are many cases of bribes given to persons of their own choice secretly and which were not recorded in books of treasury. For instance the Bani Aslam tribe got free provision in return to their support to Abu Bakr’s rule.38

Anyway the policy of terror, fear, greed and bribe –was at the top of the list that ran the administration of Abu Bakr’s rule. Such that he said:

I hope your hearts by terror and your bellies by food have been filled.39

At the end we would like to quote another case of misappropriation of public funds by Caliphs for their personal benefit and benefit of their families, particularly by Umar.

C) “Zakwan a freed slave of Ayesha narrates: When Iraq was conquered, spoils of the war were distributed among Muslims. A basket was sent to Umar with a jewel. Umar showed the jewel to Muslims around him and asked its worth. Nobody knew its worth. He then asked them to allow him to send the jewel to Ayesha for the love the Prophet had towards her.40

All agreed.

He sent the jewel to her.

Ayesha said: O, God! What a great victory You have bestowed on Umar today...”41

Apparently Umar had forgotten what he himself had told Abu Bakr that public property cannot be granted to anyone that the Caliph likes. Acceptance of a few cohorts around the Caliph cannot be a sanction for this generosity. It belongs to all Muslims. The courtiers of Caliph are not peoples’ representatives. So their sanction does not carry any credit.

More interesting is that Ayesha accepted the jewel as a present. She immediately was pleased and praised Umar. She forgot her father’s will in which he had advised her not to use anything from public property or any sum from public funds because it belonged to Muslims. This shows that in fact there was no such will.

Anyway, public funds were used for personal interests very openly and freely. On the other hand they go on making claim after claim. For instance:

“Umar did not use his Caliphate for any personal benefit. He did not allow himself any sum from public funds for his private ends. He did not allow himself to lavish money on others from public funds.”42

D) “Ibn Saad narrates from Saeed bin Aas Amawi43 that he (Saeed) asked Umar to give him a piece of land surrounding his house. He wanted the land to expand his house.

He was encouraged to make such a request because Umar had given lands to some of his close associates.

The Caliph told him: Come after the Morning Prayer so that I may do what you want.

Saeed did accordingly. Then they both, Umar and Saeed, went to the spot to see the land.

Umar drew a line by his foot over the land and said this too is yours.

Saeed bin Aas said to Umar to enlarge the land to some extent because he had a large family.

In reply to this request, Umar said: This much is enough for you. However I’ll tell you a secret, which you please don’t disclose to anyone. After me, one will become Caliph that will give you what you request. He will attend to family ties and relations.

Saeed waited the whole duration of Umar’s Caliphate. When Uthman became a Caliph he did what Umar had predicted.”44

The interesting point is that Umar did not consult anyone in his charity of lands, which belonged to all Muslims. He did not obtain permission of any Muslim around him. He perhaps forgot the many times he had censured and blamed Abu Bakr in his similar procedure and had even refused the excuse that he (Abu Bakr) had consulted the people around him.

Clandestine Luxury

Claims are made that:

“Umar was an emperor who used to sit over naked ground instead of a throne embossed with jewels. He wore a coarse cloak – very ordinary and cheap, which was quite in line with the dress of a poor ordinary citizen. In his dress, there was no distinction as to differentiate him from others. In those days there were very costly cloths and pieces in the treasury that came from East and West as gifts and presents.”!45

“Umar used to work from early morning to late at night and take wages for his labor. This he made a source for his livelihood and did not burden public funds.”!46

“He did not have leisure to eat in ease and comfort or to wash his clothes. He did not go after luxury and pleasure.”!47

“When Umar left the world he was in debts. His conscience did not let him to take a single Dirham from public funds.”!48

On the other hand historical document indicates something else:

A ) “Umar borrowed a great sum from public funds. It amounted to 86000 Dirhams.49

Now if we suppose his fixed annual expenses were five thousand Dirhams then such a loan as this would equal expenses of more than sixteen years.”50

Other matters recorded in history say:

B) “Umar gave one thousand Dirhams to one of his relatives.”51

C) “He fixed a dowry to one of his wives as forty thousand Dirhams.”52

D) “He presented 10000 Dirhams to one of his sons-in-law who had come from Mecca.”53

E) “One of the sons of Umar sold his share of inheritance to his brother, Abdullah bin Umar to the amount of a hundred thousand dirhams.54”55

Abu Yusuf confirms all these cases and adds:

F) “Umar had four thousand distinguished horses in the way of God.

Umar used to give one of these horses to one whose share from public treasury was little and his needs more. Umar put this condition when he gave the horse: If you tire the horse or do not feed it properly or make it thin and lean, you will be held responsible. If you went to holy war with it and it got wounded you will not be accountable.”56

Although the last part of the narration is praise to Umar in some way or other, if the Sunni sect believes this praise they should also believe that Umar owned four thousand horses in the first place. If it is so, it will be in immediate contradiction with claims of his having had lived a poor life because of his piety. On the whole, it can be said:

“His pious life does not mean that he had no wealth during his Caliphate. According to sources Umar was among the rich ones of Quraish.”57

While it is said about him:

“Umar owned nothing and he did not desire to own anything.”58

Support to Royal life and Hoarding Wealth

Even though in this regard their claim is:

“Hazrat Umar succeeded in his days to stand like an iron wall against this tempest and hurricane and with all his power held it in abeyance.”!59

But historical documents indicate opposite of this. Please note the following:

1 – Support To Muawiyah

“The Second Caliph used to issue special orders with regard to Muawiyah regardless of the fact that Muawiyah was one of the freed ones, yet Umar was enthusiastic to prepare him for Caliphate. So he tried to prepare ground for his (Muawiyah) coming to power.

It is enough to mention that:

A) Umar kept Muawiyah for years in the post of governor of Syria but did not check his accounts as was routine. While every year he sent auditors to check account books of his district collectors and provincial governors which sometimes ended in insult to the governors.

B) Umar did not keep his collectors and governors in their posts for more than two years. He either changed their locations or transferred them to other places.60

C) Muawiyah asked Umar to furnish him with instructions so that he acts thereupon accordingly. Umar said that he would neither issue any orders to him nor would restrict him from doing anything.61

D) These were the things in addition to other wrongdoings of Muawiyah, which Umar did know but overlooked. For instance he lent money on interest but Umar did not take any action against him.62

E) One day Muawiyah was censured and blamed in the presence of Umar. Umar said to them: Don’t blame the brave man of Quraish before me. He is so brave that he laughs even while he is angry.63

F) Umar paid as a salary of one thousand Dinars every month to Muawiyah from public funds. This amount is mentioned as 10000 dinars yearly in other narrations.64

G) Umar used to say about Muawiyah:

Beware of a man of Quraish – a man whose color is closer to black. Also beware of his son. He is one who goes to slumber when he is pleased and laughs when he is in rage.65

H) Once Umar saw Muawiyah and remarked: He is Choesroe of Arabs.66

I) One day Umar asked his companions: Will you speak about Choesroe and Caesar and their policies in the presence of Muawiyah?!67”68

Such praises for Muawiyah and his royalty while it is that:

“Sometimes Umar too had called himself a king.69”70

It is interesting that in spite of these clear confessions of the Caliph it is still claimed that:

“Having had so much greatness and power he did not like to be counted among kings and rulers.”!71

“This great sacred man instead of becoming proud and arrogant because of his battles – one of which was Jerusalem – became humble.”72

2 – Support To Tameem

Support to Tameem 73

Historical documents show that:

“In this period the Caliph made Tameem equal to the people of Badr and elevated him to the rows of great men of Islam. He was allotted a monthly salary of five thousand Dirhams.”74

Yes, this Caliph is reputed for piety and God-fearing nature.

“Umar had great reverence and respect with regard to Tameem. He used to attribute him as the best among the people of Medina.”75

While:

“About Tameem, it is said that he bought a dress for himself for one thousand Dirhams to wear it on the night of Power.76 This amount was sufficient to buy two hundred sheep. By this amount, he could have fed hundreds of hungry men.”77

3 – Support To Zaid Bin Thabit

Support to Zaid bin Thabit 78

Historical documents show that:

“Umar had a special affection towards Zaid bin Thabit. Abu Bakr during his reign asked Umar to appoint Zaid (who was a youth then) in Finance Department. When Umar became Caliph, Zaid came to him with money he had from the Treasury but Umar told him to keep it for himself.”79

4 – Support To Qunfudh

This happened in one of the years when Umar was checking the financial status of his personnel. Qunfudh was having twenty thousand dirhams of the treasury. Umar did not check the account and gave the money for his personal use even though that year he had confiscated half the property of all his officers.80

Properties of Staff Members

“Abdur Rahman bin Auf went to see Abu Bakr who was seriously sick. Abu Bakr spoke to him. One of his statements was:

Whoever among you I appointed as officer collected the revenue for himself.”81

“Umar bin Khattab [also] time to time used to call his officers to Medina. His officers had openly hoarded wealth from public funds. Umar checked their financial position and interrogated them. He used to take half of their money for public funds and the other half he left for themselves.82 He neither changed their position nor transferred them.83

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) did not like this policy. He told Umar:

If you think they are wrongdoers, why you take half of their wealth obtained by them illegitimately and return the other half? Why you keep them in their posts?

One day one of the interrogated officers asked the Caliph:

If this money is God’s why don’t you take all of it? If it is mine why you take half of it?84”85

More interesting is that:

A)

Persons like Abu Huraira, governor of Bahrain was accused of misappropriation of public funds and the Caliph was notified of this accordingly.86

B)

“The Caliph confiscated the property of Abu Moosa Ashari,87 governor of Basrah, but he was not dismissed from his job.”88

In other words, one whose property is confiscated because he misappropriated public funds is allowed to continue in his job!

There are further documents that show:

“A man named Zabbat bin Mohsin Anzai quarreled with Abu Moosa Ashari for spoils of war. Abu Moosa sent him to Umar. Umar, without asking him for the reason of his quarrel with Abu Musa, punished him. Zabbat was enraged and wanted to leave the place. At that time, Umar asked him the reason of the quarrel.

He replied: Abu Moosa has seventy Iranian slaves and a maid by name Aqeela. He said that Abu Moosa lives in such and such way. Then the man counted to Umar the spoils Abu Moosa had taken for himself.89 In spite of this information about Abu Moosa, the Caliph did not dismiss him. The only thing Umar did was that he purchased Aqeela from Abu Moosa for himself!”90

Keeping in mind his partiality with freed slave like Muawiyah, Zaid bin Thabit and Tameen you can yourself judge the following claim about him:

“Umar was so astute and shrewd that he sensed the slightest change in the life of his personnel while they were in the hurricane of victories and spoils of war. He had a watch over all of them. He interrogated them without exemption to check their honesty and trustworthiness towards government and Muslims.”91

“Umar throughout the years of his Caliphate paid due care and attention to the work of his personnel and proceedings of his governors.”92

Selection of officers

The Second Caliph strongly believed that competency and astuteness in carrying out responsibility of government and military affairs was more important than faith and justice of his men.

A) Selection Of Mughaira Bin Shoba

Ibn Abde Rabb writes in the beginning of his book Iqdul Fareed under the topic of ‘Discretion of the ruler for those competent for the job’:93

“When the Caliph decided to appoint a new governor for Kufa in place of Ammar Yasir94 he was confused because if he sent a man of probity he would be regarded as weak95 and if he sent a man of ability, he would be considered a tyrant. At this juncture, Mughaira interfered and put the suggestion:

A man of probity if considered weak the weakness will be his own – not yours. But his inability is counted on you because it will have an immediate bearing on you. On the other hand a strong man will be to your advantage while the sins will be his alone!

The Caliph said: You are right! That man is yourself, because at the same time you are a tyrant also. This was the ground for his appointment and he was sent to Kufa.96”97

In this way the Caliph preferred a profane man who had committed great many sins and crimes in Basrah when he was the governor there, but he (Mughaira) was never punished or dismissed. Now he was appointed governor of Kufa.

Historical annals say that Abu Bakr too had the same policy.

B) Selection Of Khalid Bin Waleed

Abu Bakr acted in the same way with Khalid bin Waleed and in spite of the wicked crimes Khalid perpetrated he made him commander of Syrian army.98 In the meantime, Abu Bakr left a will99 in which he had enjoined to send Khalid with governorship to Iraq as soon as he returns from Syria.100

C) Selection Of Amr Bin Aas

Similarly Abu Bakr surrendered Palestine and its affairs to Amr bin Aas. When Umar became Caliph, he transferred him to Egypt as a governor while he (Umar) himself had written a letter to Amr bin Aas addressing him as disobedient, son of disobedient (Al-Aasi ibnal Aasi)101

More interesting is the fact that Sunni scholars have themselves written that Umar bin Khattab said:

“One who appoints a transgressor to a job knowing that he is such, is like him only.”102

Anyway, in spite of all these historical records still they claim:

“Umar bin Khattab himself was epitome of justice. Therefore he wanted his district collectors and provincial governors to be like him – men of justice in all respects.”103

Piety without a Holy war

It is commonly known that the Prophet used to take the responsibility of the command of the army in important and key battles. In battles like Badr, Uhad, Khandaq, Khaiber, Conquest of Mecca, Hunain and Tabuk the Prophet himself was present. On the other hand historical annals show that neither Abu Bakr nor Umar were present in any of the battles or invasions for expanding Islamic territories though these battles took place during their Caliphate. Besides, these battles were called ‘Holy War’ that is war in the way of God. Neither Abu Bakr nor Umar took the command of the army nor directed military movements.

“Historians have unanimously narrated that Abu Bakr only once left Medina to wage a war. After Usamah returned from Mutah, he moved towards Zilqissa. There he prepared a well-equipped army. He gave the command of this army to Khalid bin Waleed while command of Ansaar group was responsibility of Thabit bin Qais. Earlier it was under command of Khalid. He issued orders to them to destroy Tolaiha and those who were from tribes of Asad and Fuzara and had gathered around Tolaiha under his command. So they had to move towards Buzakha. There are some historians who have mentioned the surprise attack launched by Bani Fuzara and that one man from them was killed. This happened in Zilqissa.”104

“Balazari and Muqaddasi have also mentioned the story of Zilqissa and the event of the attack of Bani Fuzara.

Muqaddasi after narrating Abu Bakr’s journey to Zilqissa adds:

Then Khalid advanced towards the enemy with his army. Kharija bin Hisn saw Muslims were in a limited number so he gathered courage and attacked them with a few mounted warriors. As a result, Muslims fled and Abu Bakr too fled with them. His age put him out of breath which failed his legs so he took refuge by climbing up the nearest tree concealing himself in the foliage to escape the enemy…”105

“It is interesting how they fabricate narrations106 and create stories to justify the Caliph’s absence in the field and the necessity for his presence in the capital (Medina).

They in the same way have forged narrations attributed to Amirul Momineen (‘a) in which Ali (‘a) restrained Abu Bakr and Umar not to personally take part in battles for the safety of their lives.”107

While Amirul Momineen (‘a) although having devoted and loyal warriors around him like Malik Ashtar etc. himself commanded the Islamic forces in three battles of Jamal, Siffeen and Nahrawan and took an active part in them.

Pleasant Food

Let us see what food the Caliph used to eat and in this respect, what claims have been launched.

“He (the Caliph) was so frugal in food that no one liked to eat even one morsel of his food.”108

“Sometimes he (the Caliph) remained hungry for long that his belly used to impart sounds as an empty vessel does.”109

But what historical documents say is that:

A) “A man told Umar: You have put on weight.

Umar replied: Why should I not when I have women around me who have no pursuit except to fill my stomach?…”110

More interesting is that the Caliph himself chastised those who grew fat.

“The Caliph saw a man, who because of obesity walked huffing and puffing.111

He asked: What’s wrong with you?

The man replied: This is a blessing from God.

Umar said: No, this is a punishment from God. He is punishing you in this way.”112

B) The narrator says: “I was in Umar’s house at dinner time. He (Umar) was eating bread with meat...”113

C) “Ibn Abbas says that he visited Umar during his Caliphate. A vessel full of dates was brought that he may taste them. It contained a Saa-a114 of dates.

He invited me to join and I only took one piece but he ate up all the dates emptying the vessel, then drank water from a flask kept near him. After that he put his head on a pillow, stretched his legs and relaxed…”115

D) Abdullah bin Umar narrates: “I saw my father that his mouth was watering. I asked him how he was feeling?

He said: I very much want to eat red shrimp116.”117

In the end, we leave to you to judge the truth of claims such as:

“Our lord Umar was a model and example to Muslims for his simple living, not getting entrapped in worldly pleasures and his humble and submissive nature.”!118

Rivalry to piety of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

Truly inspite of the fact that Amirul Momineen (‘a) was at the pinnacle of piety and at the highest degree of probity, how can others gain a reputation among people as being models of piety just by pretending to be simple and pious? Thus even in criticism of the aristocratic attitude of the Second Caliph it is said:

“Umar inspite of his piety was the first to lay the foundation of Arab aristocracy119.”!120

Reply to this claim should be searched in the spirituality of people who witnessed the piety of Amirul Momineen (‘a) during the period of his rule.

“People want a leader who should not prefer his own family to the people. He should live like them with them. He should try for their well-being – not the well-being of his own circle. And Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) was such.

People were well aware of virtues and other tributes of Ali and also knew that he was not like Umar. To Ali there was no difference between an Arab and non-Arab, he did not overlook least disobedience to God, never cancelled the smallest penalty, never feared scolding anyone and except for divine standards and distinctions did not care for anything. It was all this that the people could not bear…”121

Caliphs had to maintain the show of simple living and poverty because days of Prophet were still fresh in memories of people. The Prophet had lived such and people had seen it. Therefore, it became binding for Abu Bakr and Umar, but both pursued the practice of ignorant days behind this show of piety and poverty. They were partial to Arabs in relation to others. They gave preference to Quraish over the people. They satisfied their inner inclination122 such as pride and self-lust. Of course their victories in expanding Islamic territories also served a shield to them. It silenced the people to a great extent. In the meantime, they preceded little by little in bringing a gradual change in the style of government. They distanced from the type of government the Prophet had. At the same time, they pleased the people so that even to this day of ours they are pleased with them. Ali did not like any trickery and hypocrisy.

For this the piety of Caliphs was propagated to shadow the piety of Imam Ali (‘a). Today they claim:

“The pious life of Ali was a shadow of the Prophet’s life and a ray of light of Caliphate Abu Bakr and Umar.”123

“Ali was like Umar in his piety.”124

- 1. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 173.

- 2. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 239; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pgs. 266-267; Ash-Shafi, Pgs. 233-234.

- 3. To leave.

- 4. It means the opposition of those two and their associates to the customs of Prophet and laws of Shariah.

- 5. This quality in the Caliphs was like cunning that is associated with Amr Aas..

- 6. Ali Muhaddith (Bandar Regi): Siyaah Tareen Hafta-e-Tarikh, Pgs. 142-144; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pgs. 82-90.

- 7. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 14, (9000 copies), Summer 82, Pg. 15.

- 8. Refer: Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pgs. 210-211.

- 9. Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 3, Pg. 103; he wanted his son-in-law to become the Caliph through the arbitration.

- 10. Refer: Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pgs. 257-259; quoting from: Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 228.

- 11. Perhaps he learnt this diplomacy from the First Caliph.

- 12. It denotes the sons of Abu Muit bin Abu Amr bin Umayyah! Abu Muit was the grandfather of Waleed bin Uqbah.

- 13. Sons of Umayyah means: Abul Ais, Abu Amr, Aas, Abul Aas (grandfather of Uthman bin Affan and Marwan bin Hakam) and Harb (father of Abu Sufyan).

- 14. Ahmad al-Kubra: Min Hayatul Khaleefah, Pg. 435; quoting from Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pgs. 158-159.

- 15. Abdur Rahman bin Auf, brother-in-law of Uthman (husband of Umm Kulthum binte Uqbah bin Abi Muit) (Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 19).

- 16. Hurmuzan, the former king of Shoos and Shustar had become a Muslim who sketched conquest of Iranian towns for Umar.

- 17. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 36 .

- 18. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, (9000 copies), Summer 81, Pg. 20.

- 19. Consent: what is this consent? We very much come across this word in the Sunni books. If they mean it is the consent of all the Muslims, it is impossible to obtain from all. If they mean only those around the caliph and if they are regarded as the representatives of Muslims, they have no such authority because of the ruling of Umar in the following case:
Here is this historical document:
Two men came to Abu Bakr and demanded a piece of land for cultivation. Abu Bakr asked the opinion of those who were around him that time. They agreed. So, Abu Bakr gave them the relative documents of the land. The two men took the document to Umar to attest it. Umar took the document and tore it up. Umar was angry and came to Abu Bakr and asked: Is this land yours? Or, is it of all Muslims? Abu Bakr said that it belonged to all Muslims. He said that he had consulted his courtiers. Umar asked whether the few persons were all Muslims. Whether all have agreed on this? Abu Bakr said: I told at the beginning that you are more competent to be the Caliph. But you did not agree and forced me to accept this post. (Ali Muhammad Mir Jalili: Imam Ali and the Rulers, Pg. 61, narrated from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 12, Pg. 58).

- 20. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 31.

- 21. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 29.

- 22. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Husayni Firozabadi: Shanasai-e-Haft Tan Dar Sadr-e-Islam (Translation of As-Saba’ tu Min as-Salf; written by Abbas Rasikhi Najafi), Pgs. 81-82.

- 23. Husayn Ghaib Gholami: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) wa Rumuz-e-Hadith-e-Fadak, Pgs. 43-45; quoting from: Tarikh Madeenatud Damishq, Vol. 28, Pg. 200.

- 24. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 35.

- 25. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 31.

- 26. After the passing away of the Seal of the prophets and during continuous wars there was excess of war booty and wealth.

- 27. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 3, Pg. 232.

- 28. Ibid. Vol. 3, Pgs. 232-233; quoting from: Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 8, Pgs. 69-73.

- 29. Ibid. Vol. 3, Pg. 233; quoting from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 132.

- 30. Zamakhshari: Al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Pg. 231, Under Verses 30-31 of Surah Noor.

- 31. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 20.

- 32. Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 3, Pg. 62.

- 33. Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 449.

- 34. Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 157.
Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 157.

- 35. Author of Asraar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada.

- 36. Hashmatullah Qambari Hamadani: Asraar wa Asaar Saqifah Bani Saada (Secrets and relics of Saqifah Bani Saada), Pg. 81.

- 37. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pg. 58; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 2, Pg. 133.

- 38. Refer: Shaykh Mufeed: Al-Jamal, Pg. 43.

- 39. Suyuti: Jame al-Ahadith, Vol. 13, Pg. 106.

- 40. On reading the first volume of Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, it is known how Ayesha coined traditions to strengthen the foundation of Caliphate.

- 41. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 1, Pg. 118; quoting from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 133 & Mustadrak Hakim & Talkhis Dhahabi, Vol. 4, Pg. 8.

- 42. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 46.

- 43. Saeed bin Aas bin Saeed bin Aas bin Umayyah.

- 44. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 14, Pgs. 25-26; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 5, Pgs. 20-22.

- 45. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, (9000 copies), Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 46. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 73.

- 47. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 90.

- 48. Muhammad Kamil Hasan al-Hami (translated by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Naame Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 22.

- 49. Quoted from: Tarikh al-Khulafa, Pg. 135.

- 50. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 7.

- 51. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 62.

- 52. Ustad Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri, 2nd Edition), Pg. 182; quoting from: Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 55; At-Tarateeb al-Idariya, Vol. 2, Pg. 405; Al-Bahruz Zakhaar, Vol. 4. Pg. 100.
It is said that they were 10000 in number (Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 109).

- 53. Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pg. 219; Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 390; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, quoting from: Ibn Saad and Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 2, Pg. 317 & Ibn Jurair and Ibn Asakir; Tarikh al-Khulafa, Pg. 120.

- 54. Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Jame Bayan al-Ilm, Vol. 2, Pg. 17.

- 55. Extract from: Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 705; quoting from: Tarikh Mukhtasar Damishq, Vol. 10, Pg. 406.

- 56. Ibid. Pg. 182; quoting from: Al-Kharaij, Pg. 51.

- 57. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 70; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 1, Pg. 347.

- 58. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 221.

- 59. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 14, Summer 82, Pg. 20.

- 60. Quoted from: At-Tarateeb al-Idariya, Vol. 1, Pg. 269.

- 61. Quoted from: Tabari, Vol. 6, Pg. 184; Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 14.

- 62. Quoted from: Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 5, Pg. 347; Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 4, Pg. 60.

- 63. Quoted from: Al-Istiab, (on the margins of Al-Isabah), Vol. 3, Pg. 397.

- 64. Quoted from: Uyun al- Akhbaar, Vol. 1, Pg. 9.

- 65. Quoted from: Uyun al- Akhbaar, Vol. 1, Pg. 9.

- 66. Quoted from: Al-Istiab, (on the margins of Al-Isabah), Vol. 3, Pgs. 396-397In this book it is mentioned:
Whenever Umar came to Syria or looked at Muawiyah he used to remark: This is the Choesroe of Arabs.
(Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 434; Usud al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, Pg. 386)

- 67. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pgs. 98-100.

- 68. The Caliph said before the people: By Allah! I don’t know whether I am a Caliph or a king (Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 66)

- 69. Ibid. Pg. 181; quoting from: Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 290; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 256.

- 70. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102.

- 71. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102.

- 72. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 417.

- 73. Tameem bin Aws bin Kharija was a Christian monk who had converted to Islam in 9th year of Hijra, that is a year before the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S).

- 74. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 6, Pg. 88; quoting from: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 556.

- 75. Ibid. Vol. 6, Pg. 87; quoting from: Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 473; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 446.

- 76. Quoted from: Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 445.

- 77. Ustad Ali Koorani: Tadween-e-Quran, Pg. 186.

- 78. A young Jew who had recently converted to Islam.

- 79. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 76; quoting from: Tarikh Madinatul Munawwara, Vol. 3, Pgs. 854-855; Al-Isabah, Vol. 1, Pg. 85.

- 80. Balazari: Futuh al-Buldan, Pgs. 90, 226 & 392.

- 81. Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 247; quoting from Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 137.

- 82. This shows misappropriation, and the action of Caliph proves that he did not consider his officers trustworthy.

- 83. Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 46.

- 84. Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 46.

- 85. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 285.

- 86. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 205; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 3, Pg. 113.

- 87. Abdullah bin Qais, also called as Abu Musa; Abdullah bin Umar was his son-in-law.

- 88. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 222; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 43.

- 89. Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 2, Pgs. 288-289.

- 90. Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 248.

- 91. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6.

- 92. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102.

- 93. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 199.

- 94. In the original text it is mentioned that this happened at the time of dismissal of Saad bin Abi Waqqas and appointment of Mughaira in his place, while the fact is that Mughaira was not immediately appointed after Saad, in between Ammar Yasir occupied the post of governorship of Kufa for a brief period.
“After Saad bin Abi Waqqas for a short period Abdullah bin Utban and then Ammar bin Yasir became the governor of Kufa. Since the people of Kufa found him lenient they asked Umar to appoint someone else and he sent Mughaira bin Shoba to Kufa.” (Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob, Pg. 283).

- 95. Umar is said to have expressed his view in this sentence: “They weakened him – their pious governor! The pronoun used by him refers to Ammar Yasir and not Saad bin Abi Waqqas. As such, the man who was considered able one and at the same time a tyrant and profligate was Saad bin Abi Waqqas. It should be remarked here because the name of Salman Farsi too is referred to. The historical document shows that Umar appointed Salman Farsi governor of Madayn. The motive of Umar was that Salman would commit some or other wrong. This would provide Umar with an excuse to destroy Salman and discard him from society.
According to this, one can conclude that such a plot could have been there for Ammar to enmesh him. So, quite possibly Ammar must have been the victim of such intrigues.

- 96. Quoted from: Al-Istiab, Vol. 3, Pg. 472 & Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 204; quoting from Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 35.

- 97. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 200.

- 98. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 189; quoting from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 138; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 617.

- 99. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 189; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 603.

- 100. Regarding the attitude of Mughaira and Khalid we will be giving more sources and documents in the following pages.

- 101. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 200; quoting from: Abqariya Umar, Pg. 28.

- 102. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 200; quoting from: Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 56.

- 103. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 204.

- 104. Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pg. 43.

- 105. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 42.

- 106. For example: Refer: Tarikh Khaleefatain bin Khayyat, Pg. 51 (Darul Kutub al-Ilmiya, Beirut).

- 107. Extract from: Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pgs. 313-314.

- 108. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 101.

- 109. Ibid. Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 102.

- 110. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 8; quoting from: Shaykhaan Balazari, Pg. 237.

- 111. Around 3 Kgs.

- 112. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 165.

- 113. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pg. 44; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pg. 318.

- 114. Around 3 Kgs.

- 115. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 20.

- 116. A delicious Arabian dish.

- 117. Ahmad al-Bakri: Min Hayatul Khaleefa, Pg. 76; quoting from: Tabaqat, Vol. 3, Pgs. 229-230

- 118. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 5.

- 119. Rule of nobles.

- 120. Muhammad Hasan Mashayakh: Article quoted in Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue Nos. 2-3, Summer 80 – Spring 81, Pgs. 70-71.

- 121. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 174; quoting from Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 4, Pg. 78.

- 122. Like in establishment of Taravih Prayer or with attention to the recitation of Quran.
Abu Moosa Ashari says: “The Caliph appointed me as the governor of Basra and instructed me only to make the recitation of Quran popular among the people.” (Ibn Kathir: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 8, Pg. 107).

- 123. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 2, Summer 79, Pg. 33.

- 124. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 139.

Discourse 2: Scrutiny Of Social Justice

Help To The Deprived

History shows that the Caliph had no information about the poor and needy ones of the seat of his government. Here are a few proofs:

“When Umar returned from Syria to Medina, he mingled with the public to become aware of their condition.

He passed by a woollen tent in which lived an old woman. Umar went to her.

The woman asked: O man, what does Umar do when he returned from Syria?

Umar said: He has returned from Syria and has now reached Medina.

The woman: May Allah not give him a good reward from my side.

Umar asked: Woe on you. Why?

The woman said: Because I swear by God, since he has become a Caliph he has not given me a Dirham or Dinar as stipend.

Umar: Woe on you. How can Umar know about your condition while you are here?

The woman replied: Glory be to God! I didn’t know that one who governs the people doesn’t know what’s going on in the East and the West of his government?!...”1

The point worth noting is that they have added a good quality for him in continuation of this story, which in fact contradicts it.

“In the nights Umar used to go out from his house and roam the skirts of the city to know the people and their circumstances, alone without a bodyguard.”2

“He was an Emperor but with people’s pain at heart. At night he was in the streets to help the weak and support widows.”3

On the whole, it can be said:

Scrutiny into praises lavished on Umar shows that there are obvious contradictions in them.

For instance with regard to public welfare they remark:

“During Umar’s Caliphate, Muslims had become rich. They had too much money that they did not know how to spend it. There was not a single hungry man in the whole Arab peninsula.”4

“In the period of Umar there was not one poor man to be found in the Arab state.”!5

On the other hand some praise Umar for his affection to oppressed and needy people. In this respect, they have shown the power of their pens to gain the feelings of their readers. They have accepted existence of poverty in days of Umar as a fact and on the basis of that say:

“Caliph of Islamic government, Umar bin Khattab, on a very cold night saw a fire at a distance and along with his companions went towards it to see a mother sitting with her three small children by the fireside. One of the children was crying and saying: Mother, see my tears and have mercy on me. The other was saying: Mother! I’ll die of hunger. The third said: Mother! Can I possibly have some food before I die? Umar sat near the fire and said to the mother: To whom do you complain? The mother said: By God! By God! To Umar!

Umar asked: Who has informed Umar about you and your condition? She said: He is our guardian (wali) and responsible6 and he is ignorant about us!

When Umar heard this, he immediately hurried to the Treasury and brought back a bag of flour, a vessel of ghee (oil) and a vessel of honey. He prepared the food and then he himself fed the children…”!7

Here we should ask:

If such a story is indeed true what is the meaning of the claim that there did not exist a single poor needy one? If this claim is true and there was not a single person hungry in all the Arabian Peninsula what is the aim of this story?

We leave the judgment on the part of the reader. Such contradictious are aplenty in all stories invented by them.

For instance, we give here one more example:

“Umar had no leisure to wash his clothes.”!8

On the other hand they say:

“He was careless about the fashion or elegance of dress but he was very much particular about neatness and cleanliness of clothes.”!9

These contrasts resulted due to concept of piety with the different writers. Some saw goodness in dirty clothes while some in neat. So each batch of writers writes according to its mind not wanting to deprive Umar of this quality. They want to elevate him in the sight of the readers causing this discrepancy.

In this way they painted the face of their beloved Caliph so that as much as possible it appears attractive to all.

Love for the People

This claim is surprising:

“Umar is always mentioned as a friend of humanity. He was much concerned about mankind.”!10

This claim is made at a time when his affections to the people are sketched in a different color.

“Umar bin Khattab said: I hate so and so.

It was communicated to that man concerned and he asked what the reason was for his hatred?

Many people had come to the house of Umar. Little by little, the number of visitors formed a gathering. That man too arrived. He asked Umar: Have I created division in Islam?

Umar said: No.

The man: Have I perpetrated a crime?

Umar: No.

The man: Have I introduced something new in Islam?

Umar: No.

The man: Then why do you hate me? God has said:

Those who torture believers, men or women, without a reason, they carry sin and a blame openly. (Quran: Chapter Parties, V. 58).

So you have tortured and vexed me. May God not forgive you.

The Caliph heard this and admitted that the later was right…”11

This document shows that Umar hated people without any reason; while they claim:

“Umar… loved his people. Umar was by nature a man of justice and love…”!12

Social Classes

As far as social justice is concerned during his Caliphate they claim as follows:

“It is a fact that Umar was an expression of Islamic behavior. He destroyed all individual and national distinctions.”!13

On the other hand Caliphs after Saqifah

“Established a Quraishi kingdom, especially in the days of Umar accommodating the tribes in newly created cities of Kufa and Basrah but keeping the Quraish in Medina itself. He distributed lands in Medina among them and created social classes and distinctions so that wealth remained with Quraish. The Quraish tribe now owned slaves, gardens, fertile fields and villas. The Quraish had the army under them because the commanders and officers were from Quraish. Likewise, the governors were also from Quraish. The city of Medina became a place of kings, princes and wealth. All facilities, amenities and wealth were now for Quraish.

The Quraish purchased slaves and used them as labor – a free labor. They expanded the town and settled around it.14

Umar’s regime was a pure Arab regime. He restricted non-Arabs to live in Medina.15 Medina was the capital of Islam.

Besides Arabs, no one was allowed to live in the capital. Umar had prohibited an Arab girl to be married with a non-Arab. Likewise, a non-Quraish Arab was not allowed to marry a girl from Quraish.

Accordingly, Umar made the Islamic society into a society of classes and ranks. Whatever Umar ordered, the people considered a divine order and as religion itself. If an Arab married a non-Arab girl and if she gave birth in Arab territories the male child was entitled and liable to inherit. On the other hand if the birth took place in non-Arab territory; that is in a land which does not belong to Arabs – the male child was deprived of heritage.

Umar’s regime was an Arab and Quraishi regime. In military the top posts of captain, brigadier, colonel, general, commander and so forth were for Quraish. He never appointed an outsider from Quraish to any position in military.

However there was an exception. Among all the tribes of Quraish, he (Umar) did not give governorship of any province to Bani Hashim.16

In Islam, Public Treasury was called Baitul Maal. In days of Prophet, public funds were distributed among all Muslims equally without any distinction. Abu Bakr did the same during his two years’ rule.

Umar did not like this method and said that particularly from the residents of Medina each individual should get in accordance to his social status. The salaries were set for annual distribution. He made classes and grades among the people themselves.”17

“During Umar’s rule a court was formed. Courtiers came into existence. He based his rule on tribal foundations. He gave preference to his courtiers who were his companions. Among them too he framed distinctions and differences.”18

“In financial distribution, he adopted this formula: A thousand Dirhams to participants of the battle of Badr, four thousand to those present in Uhad, three thousand to fighters of Khandaq. To the Prophet’s widows he gave ten thousand Dirhams each. But Ayesha was an exception and was paid twelve thousand.”19

“Umar introduced these classified grades. He gave to Muawiyah and his father Abu Sufyan a share equal to those who took part in the battle of Badr. He gave a distinction to three women among ladies of Islam. He preferred these three to all other women of the society of those days. They were (1) Hafasa, his own daughter (2) Ayesha, Abu Bakr’s daughter and (3) Umm Habeeba, Abu Sufiyan’s daughter and Muawiyah’s sister.20”21

“These preferences and distinctions were carried out at a time when for the whole year he did not pay any amount to Umm Salma – another widow of Prophet22 because she had sided with Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, when he confiscated Fadak.”23

“Well, what is the outcome of this division? It is quite obvious, the class of dignitaries, aristocrats or lords –were up and above the common people. This is the same division that existed in Mecca prior to Islam. Now it returned but this time under the banner of Islam. In other words he took the society backwards and destroyed all that Islam had labored hard for its goals and ends.”24

“Thus Islamic society also became a society of classes like in Iran and Rome. There were various divisions – princes, clerks, military personnel, laborers, shopkeepers etc.

When Iranians and Romans were embracing Islam they used to see Islam in the deeds of Muslims and in Caliphs’ government. They concluded that Islamic society resembled theirs – that is a society of classes and divisions.

Immediately after the battles in early Islamic era, Umar issued orders to build towns like Basrah, Kufa and a city near Iskandaria. When these towns were built, he relocated Arab tribes there but kept Quraish in Medina itself. He gave the lands in Medina to them.”25

“Umar fixed a tax under name of Zakat upon farmers, artisans and merchants. The revenue accrued from this was spent on scholars,26 governors,27 commanders28 and other military personnel. In this regard he created offices and to run the offices he employed staff. Their salaries were paid from this revenue. The job of these officers was to keep a record of money collected in taxes and its expenditure.”29

In praise of this taxation and expenditure, they have said:

“By so doing he uprooted poverty from Islamic Ummah.”!30

While on the whole it be concluded that:

“This policy of Umar was based on tribal discrimination that he divided the shares from public treasury. This is appreciated as his justice. He took pride to announce that he learnt31justice from Choesroe.32 Here a question arises that why he learnt from Choesroe and not from the Prophet of Islam? Which would have been better for him. What did he see in Choesroe that enchanted him to compare himself with Choesroe!?”33

There are further historical evidences that show:

A)

“People were harassed and tortured for taxes. Troubling people started from the days of Umar.”34

B)

“Malik bin Anas says about Muslims who lived outside Medina that they were treated such at the orders issued by the rulers.35”36

C)

“Umar doubled the tax for Christians of Taghlib37 which is a widely known fact and there is no need to write anything in this regard.”38

D)

“Umar tried very much to tax the man who had become a Muslim. While originally it was only applied to Jews and Christians, and Muslims were exempted.”39

Inspite of this they claim:

“In the days of Umar in Jerusalem, taxes were collected from non-Muslims for protection of their properties and them. Once it so happened that it became necessary to transfer the army from Jerusalem to some other front. Umar gathered all non-Muslims and announced to them that their protection had been the responsibility of government therefore taxes were collected from them. Now that the army is transferred from there the money taken from them in taxes will be returned to them.”40

Policy of Racial Discrimination

“Umar was always insistent to prefer Arabs on other communities. In this respect, he exerted his efforts:

He was very much anxious and enthusiastic about this matter to establish the priority of the Arabs in the society. He wanted this to become a basic policy after his death. The next generation should follow this same track he was leaving behind.”41

Following territorial expansion42 a large number of freed prisoners from neighboring countries43 joined groups of Muslim Arabs, but their national status was never equal to that of Arabs. The Caliph (Umar) campaigned and never recognized their rights at the same level of that of Arab. He insisted on superiority of Quraish and Arab aristocrats.”44

The following document shows this policy:

“Umar saw a woman in a dress, which surprised him. He inquired about her. He was told that she was a slave of so and so.

Umar scourged her a few lashes and said: O vile and low woman!45 You make up yourself like free ladies.”46

While it is claimed:

“…Selection which brought Umar to power was a successful and timely one. He was, in fact, a media God selected to round up through him powers that had taken human destiny in their hands and suppressed human liberty.”!47

Now let us see to what extent Umar spread justice for the people and how far he extended liberty for nations.

Is their claim really true when they say:

“Umar was a perfect example of truth, a model of justice and a symbol of good standard for one and all and gained historical repute.”!48

“He was severe and tough but one who spread justice and equity.”!49

Or the fact is that he was a racial bigot who advocated the supremacy of Arabs?

Among his famous statements, he usually used to issue are:

A) “Arab cannot be enslaved by anyone.”50

B) It is very awkward for Arabs to enslave among themselves; that is some to become slaves of some…”51

C) “He mentioned in his will that all Arabs are free from God’s property…52”53

D) “Whenever Umar sent his agents on some assignment he used to enjoin them: Not to beat Arabs as it will belittle them in the eyes of others. Do not detain them too long in the battlefields as it will make them to go astray and corrupt them. Don’t act as their superiors as it will make them to feel deprived or disgruntled.”54

“On the other hand he always tried in his policies to reduce the rights of non-Arabs. He persisted on this policy regardless of conditions and circumstances. He even went beyond this and suppressed their honor and prestige. To him the entity that was not an Arab carried neither meaning nor weight.55”56

“His policy brought them atrocities in various forms and shapes beside injustice in its thousand vogues, in addition to scorn, acrimony, vilification and hardship every morning and evening.

Umar founded such policies of racial discrimination. After Umar, the Bani Umayyah Caliphs followed it exactly.”57

Here with support of relative historical documents we sketch the method Umar adopted to carry out his policy of racial superiority:

1 – Prohibition For Non-Arabs To Enter Medina

“Umar never allowed any non-Arab to enter Medina…”58

2 – Retaliation Of Arab Through Non-Arab Prohibited

“Ubadah bin Samit asked a Nabatean59 to take care of his horse or camel. He refused. Ubadah kicked him wounding his head. He complained to the Caliph (Umar). Umar wanted to punish Ubadah for his beating the Nabatean by lashes but Zaid bin Thabit told Umar: Do you want to scourge an Arab taking the side of your slave?

As a result, Umar did not scourge him but imposed a monetary penalty.”60

Inspite of this established fact of racial preference and partiality in annals of history they still claim:

“Umar’s justice is the highest example of justice that history has shown so far. The guarantee and security for putting this justice into practice was strictness of Umar.”61

“To Umar all Muslims were equal when justice was in question.”62

When an Arab and a non-Arab citizen to him (Umar) were two different categories at two different levels as you just read in the foregone text how one can believe that:

“Whenever a difference or a dispute occurred between a government officer, regardless of his rank or position and an ordinary citizen, Umar used to take the side of the citizen. He used to take immediate steps in launching investigations. If he was convinced that the complainer was the victim in the case he dismissed or punished the officer whoever he might have been.”63

3 – Prohibition To Speak In Language Other Than Arabic

“Umar bin Khattab said: Do not give popularity to the language of Persians.64

It is narrated that Umar said that if anyone spoke in Persian he has committed a very impolite act. So whoever commits an impolite act has lost self-respect.”65

4 – Objection Against Rulership Of Nobles Over Quraish

“Abdur Rahman Ibn Abi Laili narrates: I was in the company of Umar on way to Mecca when Nafe bin Alqama came to welcome us.

Umar asked him as to whom he appointed in his place.

He replied: Abdur Rahman Ibn Abzi.

Umar became angry and told him: You chose one from Mawali and kept him in your place over Quraish and friends of Prophet of God?!”66

5 – Restriction For Non-Arabs To Marry Arab Ladies

“Umar restricted marriage of Arab ladies with non-Arabs. He announced that he would surely not allow marriage of Arab ladies with those not equal to their status and class.67

He insisted that they should marry those who are equal to them.68 This resulted in dissolution of several marriages performed earlier.”69

6 – Minimum Possible Allowance For Non-Arabs From Public Treasury

“It is a widely known fact that Umar gave preference to Arabs even in fixing financial monthly allowance. They received a lion’s share while non-Arabs got the minimum possible sum from public funds.70

He made records of people on the basis of origin. Only when Arabs had been recorded71 did he record the names of Ajam (non-Arabs) thus giving them a second grade while Arabs remained at the top.

His policy of giving preference to Quraish over all freed ones, even Arabs, was carried out for the widows of the Prophet.

Here we suffice to mention one case:

Umar gave six thousand Dirhams to Juwairia72 while to Ayesha he sanctioned twelve thousand.

Umar said that he would never treat one who was a slave equal to the daughter of Abu Bakr.”73

7 – Distinction Between An Arab Living In A Town And An Arab Living In Deserts

“Umar always tried to choose his staff from Arabs living in towns. He avoided the nomads.

When Umar was told that Utbah74 had appointed Majasheh bin Masood in his place in Basrah, he said it was better that Mughaira be the governor of Basrah. Majasheh was from Wabar75 and Mughaira76 was from Madr. Wabir means outside the town – a nomad. Madr means a town-dweller.77”78

These seven evidences and cases we mentioned have historical background. These events well establish how he treated Arabs and non-Arabs reflecting his injustice due to his partiality. It is odd that in spite of his record they still claim that he said in his last days:

“Beware that in Islam all individuals are equal. Islam does not agree to any superiority among individuals. Wealth, birth, race, position or any other distinction does not stand in Islam any reason for special treatment or preference.”79

“Umar is regarded among great national leaders. He is looked upon as a supporter of liberty, democracy, justice and equality. He is indeed the greatest of the great.”80

“He succeeded because his great mind enabled him to administer the wide Islamic world of those days alone and by his own style. He did it so justly that there is no parallel to it in history.”81

“Hazrat Umar brought a political revolution in the Islamic world which brought with it prosperity to mankind. He brought into light the old doctrines on the basis of which tyrant rulers were oppressing people.”82

“Whoever looks into the life of Umar and ponders a little will understand that it was God, the Almighty’s will that he should take the seat of Caliph of the last Prophet of God to disseminate social justice in accordance with divine rules and Islamic teachings. It was His will that people of Arabian Peninsula and abroad should enjoy equally the bounty of justice.”!83

“Islam was spread far and wide in the period of Umar. He invented laws during his administration which were unknown before.”!84

Here it should be asked: With policy of racial discrimination even among the Arabs themselves how could it be possible that he dispensed justice and equality to non-Arabs and new converts to Islam? That it should be claimed that:

“During the rule of Umar… without any break, communities enjoyed ease and well-being which was the beginning of Muslim kingdoms.”!85

Racial Discrimination Resulted In Advantage To Arabs

“As a result of this policy Arabs [particularly Quraish] laid hands on every benefit and climbed the social ladder to the top. They got preference and priority in everything and in today’s terms they became first citizens. They grasped every source wherefrom flowed some or other good; anything that yielded profit was theirs. Such was the situation in all fields – business, merchandise, political, economical, etc.

These Arabs in their recent past had never even dreamed to be rulers and had lived a life, which was a source of their own vilification. It was a constant pain to them that they were alive because life was a package of misfortunes to them. The days passed in agony to them.

People who looked on their neighboring nations from a lower station and in a needy position felt their own littleness and non-entity too deeply. They compared with the dazzling glare of the greatness of Choesroe – the Emperor of Iran and the imperious glory of Caesar and saw their own backwardness magnified to them. The difference that appeared to them further impressed them.

It never occurred to their imagination that a day would come to their relief from this ugly impecuniosity. They even in their dreams never had imagined that they would be victors over Choesroe. A day they will rule the lands outlandish to them. One day they will be the masters of widespread territories.

It is normal that they will behave with pride and vainglory. It was their background that had maddened them in self-centeredness, stubbornness and arrogance. They believed that all were indebted to them. Now they should pay back what was withheld from them. Therefore, they committed tyrannies on nations subordinate to them. To belittle the men of yesterday’s greatness was a pleasure to them.

What they did when they captured their properties, farms, cultivated lands and so forth; it is natural and expected from anyone long deprived. They plunged headlong into sins and crimes. They stooped to low pleasures of life. Tyranny became their sport.

This made them like a disobedient ghost. Whoever stood to challenge it, was crushed. It had gone so wild that it would show no mercy or least leniency in dispatching its opponents to perdition.

It is exactly the same thing that is explained by us as the cause of calamities on His Eminence, Ali (‘a), his family and his Shias throughout history.”86

Cause of Rulers’ Greatness in view of Arabs

A)

“Among the factors that brought fame to some and a few were forgotten and retired into oblivion was the battles that had fallen to their lot in the period of three Caliphs. These battles brought them revenue. The revenue resulted in a common and a general welfare of the people. They satisfied their desires. They catered to their needs. They satisfied their greed’s. So they at a national level as well as in groups benefited well from the changed conditions.”87

“The world smiled to them as a result of the battles. Their dreams of wealth were translated into reality and now they had what once was their ambition. They carried propaganda on a wide scale and a particular group benefited from this propaganda. Racial discrimination was an advantage to Arabs. It was natural to remember with affection and reverence the man who had initiated this source of benefit to them. Therefore what he said became a tradition and what he desired became a law obliged to be obeyed.”88

B)

“Besides people desired continuity of government which had brought benefits to them. In the life of government, they saw the life of racial discrimination since it was the necessary element for continuation of their advantage.”89 Because:

“Racial discrimination increased their shares from Public Treasury and gave them superiority over non-Arabs…as a result they became proud, haughty and imperious and did not know any bounds to confine them. They became an aristocrat class. The plenitude of pelf, the pleasures of no prohibitions made them even challenge every power that could restrict them. So they crossed the borders of religion and trespassed limits of conscience.”90

Influence of Greatness of Rulers over Ali’s Government

In this way the greatness of Umar was to such an extent in the view of Arabs that it became troublesome for Imam Ali (‘a).

The usurpation of Caliphate was not only restricted to rulership. It went far beyond, robbing the essence of faith; that is Guardianship or Imamate of Ali, an essential part of belief and a tent-pole of religion. The divinely given virtues and heavenly attributes of Ali were overshadowed. So Ali to them was not an Imam – compulsorily to be obeyed and necessarily to be believed.

Historical documents show:

A)

“This much is sufficient to give a picture. He91 was so great to them that Ali could not restrict his own soldiers from performing Taraveeh prayers (innovated by Umar).

His Eminence (‘a) regarding this says:

Some of my soldiers who had fought under my command cried and shouted that the tradition of Umar is being changed. Ali is prohibiting us from Taraveeh!

So I feared that they might revolt in the camp.92

In some other version it runs thus: The soldiers came to Ali and asked him to appoint a man to lead Taraveeh prayers. Ali explained that those prayers are not authentic. They are against Prophet’s tradition.93

So they went away and selected one among themselves to lead them in prayers. Ali sent his son, Hasan, to disperse them. When they saw Hasan coming, they ran towards the mosque doors and shouted: O Umara!94

Perhaps the first to shout thus was Qadi Shurai.95

B)

When His Eminence wanted to dismiss Qadi Shurai from his post of judge, people of Kufa approached and pleaded him not to dismiss him because Umar had appointed him.

They said: We paid allegiance to you in the condition that you will not change anything that Abu Bakr and Umar had done.96”97

C)

“When Khawarij were driven out of Kufa, friends and Shias of Ali came to him and pledged allegiance to him saying: We are friends of your friends and enemies of your enemies.

His Eminence put a condition to them that he (Ali) would act according to Sunnah of Prophet. Rabiya bin Abi Shaddad Khathami, standard-bearer Khathami tribe who had fought under Ali’s command in Jamal and Siffeen came to Ali.

His Eminence (‘a) said: Pay allegiance to me according to Book of God and Sunnah of Prophet.

Rabiya said: I will pay allegiance to you according to the Sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Ali told him: Woe be on you! Even though Abu Bakr and Umar acted against Book of God and Prophet’s tradition and were far from truth…?”98

D)

“Soldiers who had fought in Jamal under Ali’s command shouted: O Ali! With regard to us act according to tradition of Abu Bakr and Umar.99

E)

Khawarij told Qais bin Saad that they would not obey him unless he brought to them one like Umar.100”101

F)

“Ashath bin Qais102 said with regard to Abu Moosa-Ashari who was chosen as arbitrator:

This is Abu Moosa. He was delegated by people of Yemen to the Prophet. He was the treasurer of spoils for Abu Bakr and a staff member of Umar…”103

G)

“They say: Ibn Abbas said to Ali to keep Muawiyah in his post as governor of Syria. His reasoning was that Umar had appointed him in that post.104”105

As is clear most troubles that Ali had to face during his rule was the presence of soldiers in his army who had received religious training by Umar. Later they were known as Khawarij and they fought against Ali.

“Even though Khawarij openly declared their entity in the battle of Siffeen, in the issue of raising Quran on spear points and in the matter of arbitration the fact is that doubt had already crept in their hearts in the battle of Jamal when they saw Ali’s stand towards captives and spoils of battle.106

It can even be said that doubt and suspicion took hold of them when Ali became Caliph and gave up the practice of Umar following the tradition of Prophet in treating all equally. He did not give any preference to anyone. It was at that time that they objected to him. They told him to pay their shares in the same scale as Umar used to give. Ali (‘a) rejected their demand and acted on the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S)…

Khawarij censured Ali because in the battle of Jamal, Ali did not allow them to plunder the defeated opponents and take their sons and women captives.107”108

- 1. Ahmad al-Bakri: Min Hayatul Khaleefa, Pgs. 379-380; quoting from: Al-Futuhaat al-Islamiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 407.
Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pg. 21

- 2. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 3. Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen.

- 4. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 149.

- 5. Ibid. Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 154.

- 6. It is interesting that here they have translated Wali as leader and chief but in the instance of Ghadeer with regard to Ali (‘a) they say that Wali means friend.

- 7. Abdur Raheem Mahmoodi: Maqaam-e-Sahaaba wa Zindagi-e-Khulafa-e-Raashideen Dar yek Nigaah (Status of Companions and life of Rightly Guided Caliphs in a Glance), Pgs. 23-24.

- 8. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 90.

- 9. Muhammad Kamil Hasan al-Hami (translated by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Naame Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 6.

- 10. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 80.

- 11. Ahmad al-Bakri: Min Hayatul Khaleefa, Pg. 347; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 419; Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 2, Pgs. 480, Tr. 4552.

- 12. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pgs. 205 & 206.

- 13. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 10.

- 14. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 14, Pgs. 95-96.

- 15. Except Hurmuzan, Abu Lulu, Salman and Bilal.

- 16. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 124-125.

- 17. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 54.

- 18. Rasool Ja’faryan: Seerah Rasool-e-Khuda, Pg. 164.

- 19. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 14, Pg. 160.

- 20. Quoted from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 153.

- 21. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 47.

- 22. Quoted from: Dalail al-Imamah, Pg. 39.

- 23. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 66.

- 24. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion), Vol. 16, Pg. 55.

- 25. Ibid. Vol. 14, Pg. 76.

- 26. It denotes the intellectuals, persons like Kaab al-Ahbaar! (Refer: Najah Ata at-Tai: Yahood Be-Suboot al-Islam).

- 27. Persons like Mughaira and Amr Aas.

- 28. Persons like Muhammad bin Musailama who killed Saad bin Ubadah.

- 29. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pg. 559, Footnote no. 3.

- 30. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 92.

- 31. Quoted from: Ahsan at-Taqaaseem, Pg. 18.

- 32. The Arabs called all the Sasanid rulers as Choesroe.

- 33. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 103.

- 34. Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 245 onwards.

- 35. “Umar applied the custom of Iran and Rome to landed properties in Iraq.”
Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Nigahi be Sarguzahsht-e-Hadith, Pg. 26).

- 36. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pg. 124; quoting from: Jame Bayan al-Ilm, Vol. 2, Pg. 194.

- 37. In order to maintain the supremacy of the Arabs the Caliph used to collect from them a tax, that he didn’t refer to by the name of Jizyah as they would have considered it abhorring, but he collected from them a tax which was twice that of Zakat.

- 38. Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 4, Pg. 216; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 6, Pg. 50.

- 39. Ibid. Pg. 184; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 6, Pg. 94.

- 40. Abdus Samad Hasan Zahi: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 7, (7000 copies), Autumn 80, Pg. 13.

- 41. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 127.

- 42. The system of taking war hostages as slaves was responsible for so many Arabs being made slaves in the period of Abu Bakr Waging battles was the most important method of getting slaves.
It is mentioned in history that one-fifth prisoners of the town of Qaisariya during the time of Umar bin Khattab used to be 4000 slaves. (Ref: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 142)
In the same way it is said that the prisoners of Ahwaz, especially Shustar, were in such a large number that Umar bin Khattab ordered them to be returned. (Ref: Futuh al-Buldan, Pg. 382)
The distribution of slaves among the soldiers and the government was in such a way that one-fifth were given to the government and four-fifth were retained with the soldiers.
Therefore these war prisoners were lodged in houses built for this purpose during the time of the Second Caliph.
(Ref: Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 3, Pg. 203 & 261.)

- 43. Released hostages were called Mawali.

- 44. Yusuf Gholami: Peshwai Farzand Abu Talib, Pg. 61.

- 45. Surprising is the claim that:
“He had a clean tongue and he did not like bad language.”! (Muhammad Kamil Ilhami (Translation by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Name Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 24)
While historical documents show that: Abu Sufyan in dialogue with Umar bin Khattab in the presence of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abbas told Umar: “Woe be on you Umar! You are a profane man.” (Najah Ata at-Tai: As Seeratun Nabawiyyah, Vol. 2, Pg. 130; quoting from Sirah Ibn Dahlan, Vol. 2, Pg. 58)

- 46. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 1, Pg. 392; quoting from: Abqariya Umar, Pg. 130.

- 47. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 4.

- 48. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 197.

- 49. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6.

- 50. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Fars, Pg. 128; quoting from: Al-Amwaal, Pgs. 197-199; Al-Izaah, Pg. 249; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 549; Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 9, Pg. 74.

- 51. Ibid. Pg. 129; quoting from: Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 382; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 549.

- 52. “Sending Arab tribes to war was responsible for promoting the practice of slavery among Arabs…
It is seen that prosperity of these tribes after conquests motivated them to pay religious penalties by freeing slaves…

But these changes and steps were not effective with all slaves…it can be said that these victories created among the Arabs a feeling of racial superiority…” (Jamal Jooda: Auzaa Ijtimai – Iqtisaadi Mawali Dar Sadr-e-Islam, Pgs. 88-90)

- 53. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 128; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 8, Pgs. 380-381; Vol. 9, Pg. 168.

- 54. Ibid. Pg. 130; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 325; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 273; Mustadrak Hakim, Vol. 4, Pg. 439; Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 82.

- 55. Its most prominent example will be given in the matter of Jabla bin Aiham.

- 56. Ibid. Pg. 127.

- 57. Ibid. Pg. 131.

- 58. Ibid. Pg. 131; quoting from: Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 2, Pg. 320.

- 59. Nubati or Nabatean were non-Arab people who had settled down in Iraq and southern Palestine and mixed with the local population of unspecified lineage.

- 60. Ibid. Pg. 132; quoting from: Tahdhib Tarikh-e-Damishq, Vol. 5, Pg. 446; Tadkirah al-Huffaz, Vol. 1, Pg. 31; Sunan Baihaqi, Vol. 8, Pg. 32; Seer Alaamun Nubla, Vol. 2, Pg. 440; Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 7, Pg. 303.

- 61. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 115.

- 62. Muhammad Kamil Hasan al-Hami (translated by Ghulam Haider Farooqi): Zindagi Naame Umar bin Khattab (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 3.

- 63. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 82.

- 64. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 133; quoting from: Iqtiza as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, Pg. 162.

- 65. Ibid. Pg. 133; quoting from: Rabi al-Abraar, Vol. 1, Pg. 796; Tarikh Jurjaan, Pg. 486.

- 66. Ibid. Pg. 134; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 3, Pg. 150; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 11, Pg. 439.

- 67. Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Izaah, Pgs. 280 & 286; Muhaziraat al-Udba, Vol. 3, Pg. 208.

- 68. Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Uthmaniya, Pg. 211.

- 69. Ibid. Pg. 136; quoting from: Al-Izaah, Pg. 286.

- 70. Ibid. Pg. 135; quoting from: Iqtiza as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, Pg. 159.

- 71. She was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Harith, the chief of Bani Mustaliq tribe. She was taken as a prisoner by Muslims along with the people of her clan. The Messenger of Allah (S) purchased and emancipated her and then he married her; when this news reached Harith, he came to Medina and accepted Islam and after that most people of his tribe also accepted Islam (Refer: Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Ayesha Dar Tarikh-e-Islam, Vol. 1, Pgs. 58-59).

- 72. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi, Pg. 135; quoting from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Sirah Payambar, Pg. 442; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 614.

- 73. Utbah bin Ghazawaan was the founder of Basrah.

- 74. Ibid. Pg. 135; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 8, Pg. 111.

- 75. That is desert dweller; Bedouins etc.

- 76. Mughaira was a Thaqafi and a native of Taif.

- 77. That is city dwellers.

- 78. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 79; quoting from: Mojam al-Buldan, Vol. 1, Pg. 433.

- 79. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 164.

- 80. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 79.

- 81. Ibid. Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 46.

- 82. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 422.

- 83. Ibid. Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 421.

- 84. Ahmad Naseeb (translated by Saaduddin Shaykh Ahmadi): Mohabbat-e-Payambar Dar Qalb-e-Yaaranash (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 84.

- 85. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 6.

- 86. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pgs. 170-171.

- 87. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a) (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 106.

- 88. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 172.

- 89. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pg. 106.

- 90. Ibid. Pg. 179.

- 91. Second Caliph.

- 92. Quoted from: Kafi, Vol. 8, Pgs. 59-63.

- 93. It includes his words, actions and silent approval.

- 94. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 1, Pg. 269; Vol. 2, Pg. 283.

- 95. Quoted from: Rijaal Mamaqaani, Vol. 2, Pg. 83.

- 96. Quoted from: Rijaal Mamaqaani, Vol. 2, Pg. 83.

- 97. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Salman Farsi (Translated by Muhammad Shahri), Pg. 173.

- 98. Ibid. Pgs. 175-176; quoting from: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 146.

- 99. Quoted from: Al-Kamil fil Adab, Vol. 1, Pg. 144.

- 100. Quoted from: Akbaar at-Tiwaal, Pg. 207; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 4, Pg. 62; Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 3, Pg. 343; Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pgs. 370-371.

- 101. Ibid. Pg. 174.

- 102. He was from Kinda tribe.

- 103. Ibid. Pg. 176; quoting from: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 130.

- 104. Careful attention on these statements would clearly prove what circumstances restrained Amirul Momineen (‘a) from criticizing the Caliphs openly during his Caliphate and the exigencies of accepting the names of Caliphs for his sons.

- 105. Ibid. Pg. 175; quoting from: Al-Fusool al-Muhimma by Ibn Sabbagh Maliki, Pg. 49.

- 106. His Eminence, Ali (‘a) asked them: What has made you angry with me? They replied: The first thing that infuriated us against you was that in the battle of Jamal, though you allowed us to take war booty you restrained us from taking their women and children as hostages. (Quoted from: Baghdadi: Al-Farq Bainal Firq, Pg. 78).

- 107. Quoted from: Shahristani: Al-Milal wan Nihal, Vol. 1, Pg. 116.

- 108. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Article: ‘Mariqeen’ (Translation Muhammad Shahri) quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 9, Pgs. 239-241.

Discourse 3: Scrutiny Of Judicial Justice

Double Standards In Judgment

1 – Two Ways Of Dealing – With Zahra And Jabir Bin Abdullah Ansaari

“Bukhari narrates in Sahih:

Ayesha says that Zahra demanded from Abu Bakr her inheritance – the Fadak and the rest of the amount of Khums. But Abu Bakr refused to pay. Zahra got angry and retired to her house. She never spoke to Abu Bakr until she died.1

It is interesting that Bukhari writes:

After passing away of Prophet, Jabir bin Abdullah claimed that the Prophet had promised him to give him certain amount.

Abu Bakr put his hand inside and gave to Jabir again and again. Each time he gave five hundred dirhams and he did this thrice.2”3

This double policy of the Caliph is surprising: He did not accept the claim of Zahra to inheritance, who is infallible according to the testimony of verse of Quran and he asked her to present witnesses whom also he rejected later, but he accepted the claim of Jabir bin Abdullah Ansaari without asking for any witness regarding Prophet’s promise.

“Bukhari and Muslim have narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansaari: When revenue from Bahrain was brought to Abu Bakr I was present there. I said to Abu Bakr: The Prophet had told me that when the revenue from Bahrain came he would give me something from it.

Abu Bakr told Jabir to go and pick up what the Prophet had promised.

You see that the Prophet has passed away, Jabir claims that the Prophet had promised him a certain amount from Bahrain revenue. After his death the revenue comes. Abu Bakr has succeeded the Prophet. Jabir goes to Abu Bakr and narrates a story to him. Abu Bakr believes him and pays him the amount he wants.

Commentators of Bukhari and Muslim in their books justify the act of Abu Bakr in his making the payment from public funds without a witness or swearing.

The book Al-Kawakib al-Durari Fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Kermani, the most reliable commentary on Bukhari, writes:

Abu Bakr believed the word of Jabir because of the Prophet. He had warned that if anyone said a lie on his behalf he would have a seat of fire in the next world. Therefore it was not possible for a companion of Prophet to lie and accept fire for himself.4There was great likelihood that Jabir told the truth. Well, why is such a possibility not considered with regard to Zahra? She was the daughter of Prophet and she was infallible. Her position was far greater than that of Jabir, who was only a companion of the Prophet.

New let us see what Ibn Hajar Asqalani says in Fath al-Bari:

This tradition proves that the word of a just companion of the Prophet, individually, should be accepted though it may be profitable to him.5

For this reason, Abu Bakr did not demand a witness.

Zahra said that the Prophet had bestowed to her the Fadak. So why such difference between the two claims – one his only daughter and another only his companion among so many?

Ayini says in his book Umdat al-Qari Fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: Jabir is a just man according to the proof of Quran and traditions. Therefore, Abu Bakr did not demand a witness. It is not likely that a Muslim would lie on the Prophet, what to say of a companion! 6

How is it that Abu Bakr accepted the claim of Jabir but did not accept the claim of Zahra?

Was she lesser than Jabir?

Would she lie about the Prophet? You do not presume that a Muslim would attribute lie to the Prophet.

What is the difference between the two claims?

Why the claim of Zahra is rejected inspite of the rules and witnesses? But the claim of Jabir is accepted without any witness!!”7

2 – Double Standard Treatment Between Son Of Amr Aas And Ubadah Bin Samit

With regard to justice of Umar it is said:

“Umar was so dignified that he could stop any insurgency. Muhammad son of Amr Aas was a victor and governor of Egypt. During the governorship of Amr Aas a horse race was held. In this race someone else was riding the horse of Muhammad. In the race a horse resembling Muhammad’s won. Muhammad was present there. He presumed his horse won the race. He said: By the Lord of Kaaba my horse was ahead of all.

The real owner of the horse, an Egyptian, shouted: By God of Kaaba it was my horse that won. Muhammad bin Amr Aas became angry and scourged him with the lash he was holding and said: Take this. I am a noble. The Egyptian went to Umar and complained. Umar called Amr Aas and his son to Medina. Umar asked the Egyptian to take the lash and beat the noble’s son. Then he asked Amr Aas why he treated people like slaves when they were born free?”!8

It seems that Umar had forgotten the case of Ubadah bin Samit who had beaten up a man and broken his head. The complaint went to Umar who took the side of Ubadah and without obtaining the consent of plaintiff ordered a penalty to be paid.

At that time Zaid bin Thabit was present who reminded him that he was favoring of his slave to lash his own brother. Therefore he imposed penalty instead of lashing.9

Still they claim:

“Umar always held justice in his view above everything. He executed justice without any consideration.”10

The incidents narrated here show double standards and that justice depended upon his policies.

“When he gave his lash to the Egyptian to scourge Muhammad bin Amr Aas, he said: O, Amir! Are you satisfied now? Is your heart pleased now?

In this way he accused Umar of taking revenge from him and his father for personal reasons.11”12

3 – Different Treatment Between The Son Of Amr Aas And Mughaira Bin Shoba

Historical documents indicate that Mughaira was the first to address Umar as Lord of Believers and he greeted13 Umar with this title. He was appointed by Umar as the governor of Basrah and he remained in this post for a long time.

Abu Bakra14 was from Thaqif tribe who had embraced Islam when soldiers of Prophet surrounded Taif. Abu Bakra together with his two brothers, Nafe and Ziyad from his mother deposed to Umar to stone Mughaira for adultery. The fourth witness was a person named Shaml bin Ma’bed.

All three gave evidence according to religious standard for Mughaira’s sin, but Umar by some trick or other treated the case in such a way that the evidence given by three Muslim was not established as authentic. Thus, he rescued him from death.

“When Ziyad arrived and entered the mosque, elders of Muhajireen and Ansaar came and gathered around him. Umar saw Ziyad and said: God will not belittle any man from Muhajireen by the tongue of Ziyad.15

[Ziyad got the message and gave evidence in a way, which exonerated Mughaira.]

Mughaira was saved from death and Umar was glad16 and shouted: God is greater. All shouted along with him. Then Umar scourged the three witnesses but not Ziyad…17”18

Allamah Al-Askari narrates from Ibn Abdul Barr that Umar admitted to Mughaira during Hajj rituals:

“I swear by God I don’t think Abu Bakra had lied about you.”19

Yet Umar rescued him, which was against justice while Mughaira deserved punishment according to religious law and God’s decree. Still they say:

“In Umar’s view the governor was an individual like others. He too is subject to punishment as others according to God’s Rule.”20

“Although he was a ruler of a wide and extended country he was a shrewd, astute and a clever man in executing justice in all cases.”21

“Umar bin Khattab used to mention this in public. He said: Now I am the Caliph. I will be serious, severe, harsh and hard towards tyrants and wrongdoers. With regard to good people and pious, I will be kind and affectionate.”!22

Ignoring Calls of Oppressed

While it is claimed:

“He (Umar) made himself available to every victim, no matter however low a station he was from.”!23

“In investigating disputes, he was to the extreme extent particular. Wherever one approached to him for justice he used to stand then and thereon the spot and dispense justice.”!24

Historical documents show how inattentive Umar was in complying with petitions calling on him for justice:

“Ahnaf bin Qais narrates: On the occasion of a great victory we went to Umar to congratulate him.

Umar asked: Where have you lodged?

We told him such and such place. He got up and came with us to see the place of our lodging. We rode our horses. The horses were too tired, because they had run long.

Umar said: Why didn’t you fear God when you rode the horses? Don’t you know that they have a right upon you? Why didn’t you show mercy to them? Had you come alone they would have grazed.

We replied: We are returning from victory and we hurried to congratulate you and Muslims.

Then he returned and we too accompanied him.

In the meantime, a man approached him and demanded justice from him as he had become a victim of someone’s tyranny.

Umar immediately raised the cane and hit him on his head saying: When Umar is at your disposal you have no business with him, but when he is busy in attending Muslim affairs you come to him asking for justice.

The man went away angry…”25

Does this incident not show that Umar, who was so anxious about horses that are animals, was not at all anxious about human beings – especially the oppressed? Animal meant to him more than a man.

The judgment is upon you.

- 1. Quoted from: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Tr. 704; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 104.

- 2. Quoted from: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Tr. 889.

- 3. Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Jawahiri: Abu Bakr, Pg. 53.

- 4. Quoted from: Al-Kawakib, Vol. 1, Pg. 125.

- 5. Quoted from: Fath al-Bari, Vol. 4, Pg. 375.

- 6. Quoted from: Al-Umdatul Qari, Vol. 12, Pg. 121.

- 7. Ustad Sayyid Ali Husayni Milani: Guftaarhai-e-Peeramoon Mazloomiyat-e-Bartareen Banu (Translation: Masood Shikohi), Pgs. 61-65.

- 8. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 5.

- 9. Its sources were explained in Discourse 2.

- 10. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 203.

- 11. It was perhaps on the basis of this argument that Amr Aas said: “Curse be on the time when I served as a governor of Umar.”

- 12. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pgs. 208.
(Najah Ata at-Tai: Saqifah, Pgs. 100; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 58).

- 13. Some are of the view that Amr Aas has used this appellation for the Caliph (Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 240).

- 14. Nofiya bin Harith.

- 15. Quoted from: Wafayaat al-Ayaan, Vol. 2, Pg. 406.

- 16. Umar’s dealing in this case shows that he had a hidden aim in carrying out or not carrying out the death penalty. His insistence on punishing Khalid bin Waleed in the case of Malik bin Nuwairah was not obedience to religious rules but to obtain political power, which Umar was after. He wanted to remove Khalid from the way as he considered him a strong rival.

- 17. Quoted from: Talkhees Dhahabi, Vol. 3, Pg. 448.

- 18. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 249-254.

- 19. Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 253.

- 20. Fawad Farooqi: Beest-o-panj Saal Sukoot-e-Ali (2nd Edition 1379), Pg. 85; Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 90.

- 21. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 22. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 195.

- 23. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 11, Autumn 81, Pg. 7.

- 24. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 101.

- 25. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 19; Ibn Jauzi: Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 83.
This historical document also contains additional incidents that speak of the regret of the Caliphs but the attitude of the Caliphs portrayed in history is against these claims.

Discourse 4: Analysis Of The Rights Of Legal Opponents

Type Of Dealing With Legal Opponents

Iron-Handed Policy

When Muhajireen came out successful in Saqifah, they at once adopted the policy of suppressing rival parties or adversaries. This they did to establish Abu Bakr’s authority at any rate:

“Abu Bakr Jauhari has narrated from Baraa bin Azib: After the news of allegiance to Abu Bakr in Saqifah spread, immediately Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaidah and a group of associates of Saqifah set out in the town roaming the streets. Whomever they met on way they held his hand and put it on the hand of Abu Bakr without regard whether that man was in favor or not.1

They dragged the people to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr in any way possible. In this matter Umar was more rough than others and after him was Qunfudh bin Umair.

The group that set out to take Bay’at from people was anxious to finish the job as early as possible.”2

Umar started the job from Saqifah itself.

“Umar says: When they obtained Bay’at from people they attacked Saad bin Ubadah. One person asked him whether he killed Saad. Umar replied that God killed him!3

According to another narration after Umar said: Kill Saad! He shouted: May God kill him. Then he went at the head of Saad and said:

I want to kick in such a way that you become invalid.4”5

“At the indication of Umar people kicked Habbab bin Mundhir,6 filled his mouth with mud7and broke his nose.8

After a short while another group came and kicked Miqdad.9

On the same spot Saad bin Ubadah was about to die because of the kicks he had got.10

On that day whoever shouted against them his mouth was filled with mud.11 There was only one cry, one clamor and one shouting that was constantly heard:

Kill so and so!12 Kill them! We cut your throat…13

Umar set free whoever paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, pointing him the direction to go. He did this to impress on the public that job was done and finished.

Afterwards this group consisting of close associates and supporters headed to the lanes and by lanes of the town. Whoever they came across they held a grip on him and dragged him, whether he liked it or not to Abu Bakr and taking his hand touched it to the hand of Abu Bakr. Then they set him free.14”15

There are historical annals that show:

“A group of Arab nomads (Bani Aslam)16 came to Medina to buy rations. Umar sent word to them to see him. When they came Umar told them that:

If they paid allegiance to Abu Bakr they would be paid the cost of rations. He further suggested them to go in the lanes and streets and invite people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. He encouraged them to break the head and nose of those who refused.

The narrator says: By God! I saw those rough Arabs tied their waists closely, cloth-pieces of Sanaa on their heads and faces as covering. They took batons in their hands and set out like dogs and forced people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.”17

In the same way some orientalists have analyzed the act and behavior of Bani Aslam Arabs thus:

“Bani Aslam was a branch of Khuzaaya. They were known to be loyal to Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet valued their loyalty. He gave them the status of Muhajireen. He ignored as to whether they had really migrated to Medina or not. A considerable number of them resided close to Medina. As such, they were always ready to help the Prophet. They were known as enemies of Ansaar. Therefore it can be said that they with their huge number proved a force that gave strength to Abu Bakr’s Bay’at. They at once replied positively to the proposal of Umar. They also hit Saad bin Ubadah as an insurgent.”18

Stamp of Apostasy

“Apostasy was a great disgrace that supporters of Saqifah stamped on their opponents to justify their tyrannies such as killings and forcibly taking Bay’at from the people. These battles and suppressing those who had falsely claimed prophethood went a long way in deceiving people. It was a great help to them to establish their authority and gain people’s confidence. It completed the designs and tricks of the Quraishi party that had now attained the status of being a rightful one to be at power.”19

In a short scrutiny on the basis of Abdullah bin Saba, battles that occurred during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and got a distinction for him according to claim of Sunni sect can be divided into three parts.

1 – Battle with Musailaima and Tolaiha, who claimed prophethood. Some groups too had gathered around them who were in fact, infidels – not Murtad. But Saif bin Umar calls these battles the battles of Murtads and shows its mischief to be widespread one.

In this respect, we should know that Abu Bakr had no other way but to fight them to keep his Caliphate.

“Only two tribes among the tribes around Medina rose against Islam in support of Tolaiha. One was the tribe of Tolaiha himself named Asad, the other was a group of Fuzara, a branch of Ghatfan tribe. This tribe was again a branch of the tribes of Qais Aelaan. Except these two, there appears no other name that could have gathered around Tolaiha and fought against Muslims.”20

“In the army of Tolaiha were a few men from Asad tribe, which was his own; besides there were few more from the tribe of Fuzara under the command of their own chief Ainat bin Hisn. There was no one from other tribes.”21

Therefore, their mischief was not as serious as claimed; that their suppression should be a matter of pride for Abu Bakr and that also in the way of service to Islam!

2 – The numerous battles, all of which are fabricated by Saif bin Umar, have no reality at all.

“In this respect, we see battles of imagination in the history of Islam, which are called battles with apostates during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr like: the Battle of Abraq, attack of Zilqissa, apostasy and battle of Tai tribe, apostasy and battle of Umm Zamal, apostasy of the people of Mohra, apostasy of the people of Oman, the first battle with the apostates of Yemen, apostasy and battle of Akhabas, the second battle of apostates of Yemen.”22

“Yes, the only thing true and which other historians have also mentioned is that Abu Bakr raised an army and gave the command of Ansaar to Thabit bin Qais, making Khalid bin Waleed the commander of the forces and sent them to confront those who had camped at Buzakha intending to attack the Muslims. After this there was no other battle.

Yes, except for these two Abu Bakr did not appoint anyone else to the command and except for this flag did not raise any flag. He also did not send Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] as commander of army to fight apostates of Hamaqtain at the outskirts of Syria. Actually Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] was sent with soldiers to Syria.”23

Accordingly, on this basis battles with the Murtads in the time of Abu Bakr and all other battles are short of credit, having no basis. They are all inventions of Saif bin Umar.24

“According to a deep research and investigation in this matter it can be said with certainty that: all the matters given in detail about the battle of Abraq and story of Zilqissa, they are all mentioned only by Saif bin Umar. No other historian has said anything about them. It is nothing but fabrication of Saif. There was no apostasy of most of these tribes Saif has blamed. No one camped at Abraq and Zilqissa and neither is there any truth in the story that the apostates were about to attack Medina. Similarly, the report that Abu Bakr appointed some persons for defense of Medina is also false. All the four battles of Abu Bakr mentioned by Saif are imaginative ones. He has fabricated all incidents about the victories, his praises, his domination and control over enemy territories. In fact all the persons and places recorded by Saif have no base in reality.”25

These stories are invented to give superiority and greatness to Abu Bakr. To show that it was service to Islam and to uplift the Caliph in people’s view.

According to the research of Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari in the 2nd volume of his book, Abdullah bin Saba, all the narrations related to the battle of Abraq are forged and all the events that show the serious problems the apostates posed that the Caliph had to struggle hard to suppress them, are in fact all figments of the imagination of Saif bin Umar.

In the same way except for some events related to Zilqissa all are forgeries and unreliable.26

The whole story of apostasy of Umm Zamal, People of Oman and Mohra,27 people of Yemen and Akhabat are fabrications of Saif bin Umar.28 These stories were invented to give superiority to Abu Bakr and show that it was service to Islam; thus, exalting him in people’s view.

Similarly, the apostasy of Tai tribe and their insurgency being crushed during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is not true. According to historical documents, the Tai tribe had not apostised; in fact they were staunch supporters of Abu Bakr.29

On the basis of this all the battles of apostates supposed in the time of Abu Bakr and other battles which are called as victories, are all fabricated and have no historical basis.30 They are all products of the imagination of Saif Ibn Umar.(31)(32)

3 – The real reason for battle with Muslims was for their not accepting Abu Bakr. They declared them Murtad (Apostates) only to justify their suppression and bloodshed at the hands of officers of Abu Bakr such as Khalid bin Waleed, Akrama bin Abi Jahl and Ziyad bin Labeed.

“Some tribes revolted on the issue of Zakat. They did this because they were against Abu Bakr and his rule. Their reasoning was: Just as Quraish revolted against the will of Prophet, so too do not obey the Quraishite regime of Abu Bakr and his party. The sign of their disobedience was their not paying the tax to central government. By this act they in fact challenged the legitimacy and legality of Abu Bakr’s rule. It stamped a great question mark over it. From here started the battles under name of Battles of Apostates which were actually the battles to confirm their own seat of Caliphate, which had come into being by means of revolt of Quraish immediately after passing away of Prophet. They thought such a way of harsh dealing with the people would blanket their rule by legitimacy.”33

Saif bin Umar continued to add imaginative wars and battles either under name of Murtads or victories. In fact it was suppression of opponents who refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr like the Kinda tribes that lived outside Medina. They called Murtad whoever refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr as Caliph. While the fact was that they were not so.34 But they found no other excuse. In the days of Abu Bakr it is said:

“Associates of Saqifah wanted to show that refusal to accept Abu Bakr as Caliph and not to pay Zakat to him was refusal of the very faith of Islam. So it is infidelity. By so doing, they were making Abu Bakr sacred.”35

“The logic of Saqifah people was that whoever opposes Abu Bakr and his government was an infidel and the battles of Ridda against the nearby tribes were based on this policy.”36

Some of these tribes were dealt with very harshly. The soldiers of Abu Bakr killed them and destroyed their properties. Most of this bad treatment was not necessary either. Therefore, they refused to pay taxes to the collectors of Abu Bakr. For this also they had to pay heavily37

We read the following claim in describing Abu Bakr’s stand in such cases:

“In crushing insurgency and campaigning against the plot of Murtads and the disunity in Islam our lord Abu Bakr followed the same policy which the prophets of God had adopted in their age. Abu Bakr performed the true part of Caliphate. The gratitude and praises together with thanks of Muslims go to him till the Day of Judgment.”!38

Let us scrutinize the behavior of Abu Bakr with those who opposed him; how they were falsely declared as Murtads no matter however staunch Muslims they were.

“The regime of that time started a bloody campaign against opponents of Abu Bakr and killed them all so there remained no opponent.”39

“In historical books, it is endeavored to avoid mention of their apostasy but several evidences prove they were not Murtads nor did they refuse Zakat. They refused to pay Zakat only because they did not recognize Abu Bakr a legitimate successor of Prophet.40

Some historians and researchers have also explained this matter:

Ibn Katheer says:

Various tribes of Arabs entered Medina in groups. They prayed. But they did not pay Zakat.

Some only refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.41

Yaqoobi narrates:

Some groups of Arabs declared their Prophethood. Some became Murtad, some placed crown on their heads.

Some were although not Murtads yet they refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.42

Regarding the rules of Murtad (Apostates) Ibn Hazm says:

These men were Muslims. They never departed from faith of Islam. So they were not Murtads. The only thing they did was they refused to pay tax to the person of Abu Bakr. They were killed for this.

Ibn Hazm further adds: The Hanafi and Shafei sect too are in agreement with belief that the decree of Murtad cannot be applied to them. They all were Muslims – within the embrace of Islam. Therefore both these two sects are against the ruling of Abu Bakr.43

Naubakhti and Saad bin Abdullah Ashari have the following comments:

They were a group unwilling to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. They said they would distribute that sum among poor and needy ones of their own tribe. They said: We shall do this until a real and rightful successor of the Prophet is known to them. This shows that they did not consider Abu Bakr as a rightful successor to Prophet. So were they Murtad?44

Tabari also narrates from Abu Mikhnaf: The two tribes Asad and Fuzara said: By God! We will never give Bay’at to Abu Bakr – the successor to Prophet.45

In this regard, the well-known Egyptian writer Abbas Mahmood Uqqad writes:

Another group was believer in the very principle of Zakat. But they did not believe nor had any faith in one whom they were supposed to pay Zakat.46

Shaykh Muhammad Aale Yasin has performed a scholarly analysis of all narrations regarding Murtads mentioned in Tarikh Tabari surrounding the whole period of Abu Bakr. He rejects all of them because of false reports and lack of authenticity. He comments: There is no text in hand that shows their rejection of the principle of Zakat. When it is thus, there is no ground to prove their turning Murtad (apostates).47

He says: Behind the killings on pretext of being Murtad is concealed some other reality. The fact is that the code of Murtad was the only option to Abu Bakr. It gave him a pretext to destroy and kill them as their presence was destructively detrimental to Abu Bakr. Their not paying Zakat could have taken to itself a movement and a movement could have spread far and wide. The consequence was still more dangerous because it could have challenged his Caliphate – that is his occupation of the seat of a Caliph of the Prophet of God. Therefore, he had to kill them to rescue himself. Of course the code of Murtad came to his aid.

Ali Abdul Razzaq (a contemporary Egyptian writer) says in frankness: There no doubt at all that battles with Murtad was only a political aspect. Abu Bakr had to crush it under the excuse of apostasy, which he did.

They were only opponents of Abu Bakr like other Muslims who did not desire to come under the yoke of Abu Bakr’s rule.

The writer says that the issue of apostasy is the darkest spot of the ground of crimes in the history.48

Allamah Al-Askari also in his documentary research has dealt with the sense and the meaning of Murtad, that is denial of faith after having embraced it and the difference how the Prophet looked at it and how he (Abu Bakr) used it as a tool. Thus the Allamah comments:

From what we said so far it comes to light that those accused of being Murtad were actually not apostates. They were only opposed to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate therefore they refused to pay Zakat to him.49

The writer of History of Ridda50 says that Malik bin Nuwairah, Qais bin Asim and Aqra bin Habis collected Zakat and distributed it among their own people.51 This act of Qais was regarded as a great crime and they said that he was the greatest criminal.52

More than this is Ibn Athim’s53 saying and also Waqadi’s words: They talk of apostasy of the people of Hadhramaut and tribes of Kinda:

Some among these tribes considered Caliphate the right of the Prophet’s house members.

Haritha bin Suraqa one of the chiefs of Kinda, said to Ziyad bin Labeed54 who had come to collect Zakat:

We obeyed the Prophet of God as long as he was alive. Now if one of his House Members comes to power we will obey him. But as for Abu Bakr there is no obligation on us to obey him and he has no commitment towards us.55

…Harith bin Muawiyah, one of the chiefs of Bani Tameem, said to Ziyad bin Labeed who had come to collect Zakat: You are asking us to obey one regarding whom we have not pledge or covenant.

Ziyad said: But we have chosen him for us.

Then Harith asked: Just tell me why Caliphate was taken away from the Prophet’s House? On the other hand Quran says that they are more befitting than others to this job.

Zaid answered: Muhajireen and Ansaar know their own affairs better than you.

Harith: No. By God, it is not so. Because of your envy you departed from Household Members of Prophet. I can never accept that the Prophet passed away without nominating anyone in his place.

Ziyad! Get up and go away from here because you are inviting us to a thing, which enrages God.

In the meantime Arfaja bin Abdullah al-Zahali said: By God, Harith is telling the truth. Avoid this man (Ziyad) as his friend, Abu Bakr has no worth to sit in the seat of Caliph. Emigrants and Helpers also are not wiser than the Prophet for the Ummah.

Then they dragged Ziyad from there. They wanted to kill him. Ziyad forced the tribe whichever he visited to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. But they responded in a way that was unpleasant to Ziyad. They did not agree with Ziyad’s logic. Therefore Ziyad’s mission failed in the tribes. Finally, Ziyad returned to Medina and reported the results of his visits to Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr became extremely angry. He sent Ziyad again to the same tribes, this time with a force of four thousand soldiers.

Ziyad went to the tribes with the soldiers and also with a concealed motive of revenge. He massacred the tribes of Bani Hind, Bani Aqal, Bani Hujar and Bani Himyar.56

Then he confronted other tribes of Kinda. After many battles and attacks which resulted in bloodshed on a wide scale, help reached Ziyad when soldiers of Akrama bin Abi Jahl came to his rescue. Ziyad defeated all of them at Hadhramaut.57

Besides these tribes, there are other tribes whose men too were massacred and their properties and belongings looted or destroyed. Their children and womenfolk were made captives. When Yamama people heard that Abu Bakr had become Caliph they refused to recognize him. Abu Bakr sent troops there. Yamama people also refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr because he was in their view not the legitimate Caliph. Abu Bakr found no ground to kill them in order to take revenge of their rejecting his authority. The only way open to him was to declare them apostates. The soldiers massacred them all.58

The tribe of Bani Salim too was not safe from this killing, plunder, pillage and other atrocities. Khalid bin Waleed under instructions of Abu Bakr burned their menfolk alive. This was such a brutal tyranny that even Umar objected and censured Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr in reply to criticisms said: Khalid is the sword of God.59

The inhabitants of Daba, a district between Oman and Bahrain were also massacred by the army of Akrama bin Abi Jahl. Abu Bakr had issued him direct orders to not leave anyone alive. Their properties were plundered. Their sons, daughters and widows were made captives.60

There are several other tribes and also groups who came under the category of apostates.

Tabari gives us a list of the tribes in the third volume of his history that apostised after passing away of Prophet.

For instance, he mentions Tai, Asad, Ghatfan, Hawazin, Bani Salim, Bani Amir, people of Yamama, Najd, Bahrain, Amman, Tihama, Yemen, Hadhramaut and Bani Tameem. It is interesting that Tabari has narrated most events from the greatest liar of history, Saif bin Umar61. His source was the lies of Saif.62 Because the sense and meaning of Murtad is obscure and even its extent not known, most cases of apostasy are doubtful and cannot be accepted.”63

In a way these cases of Murtad were fabricated, the battles against them too were false. Some were only to provide a ground to crush opponents of Abu Bakr.

It could be said that fabrication of cases of apostates and including them in books like Tarikh Tabari was only to hide the crimes of Abu Bakr’s rule towards Muslims who regard Abu Bakr’s regime illegitimate.

In other words, so many cases of apostates in the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate were fabricated to suggest to the people what terrible harm they would have caused to Muslim society, thus leading to the conclusion that whatever done was necessary. So the readers will not go after research and on the contrary even praise Abu Bakr and feel a sense of indebtedness to him for his services to Islam. The reader would regard him as a rescuer of Islam from apostasy.

“They were those who did not see Abu Bakr a deserving one to succeed the Prophet as Caliph. Therefore they were not willing to pay tax to him though they had no doubt in Zakat as an obligation.

…people who were massacred in those days had faith in God and His Prophet. They prayed. They did not deny the obligation of Zakat. The only thing was they hesitated to pay tax to Abu Bakr because Abu Bakr’s becoming the Caliph to them was a matter of suspicion.

The Sunni sect too believes that Abu Bakr tried to justify the crimes of Khalid. They refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr, but they did not refuse the very Zakat itself.

In fact, they did a right thing. So they have a reward with their God. Zakat of property should be calculated and paid. But to whom? Only to him who has Guardianship (Wilayat) over them. Such a one can be only Infallible – introduced by God and His Prophet. He must be the legitimate successor of the Prophet. Was Abu Bakr so? He came to power through a plot – Saqifah. But tyranny knows no reasoning. Its language is of force, torture and atrocity.

On the other hand in reliable books of Sunni sect such as Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of Bukhari it is mentioned that the blood of those who refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr was not legal to be shed. Their bloodshed was wrong because they were Muslims.

These numerous traditions are partly general and partly conditional.

Neither a battle with them nor killing them could be justified. Abu Bakr has said that Zakat is from the property and it should be paid. But the dispute here is the person or authority who can demand it. Only he can demand who is a guardian of people. It is the Prophet only who can appoint a guardian. Anyone who reaches the seat of Caliph by hook or by crook cannot be a guardian. What is the legitimacy that gives authority to him?

Even if they refused to pay, was it reasonable to wage a war against them? Or kill them? Reason dictates to attend to the grievances and see their reasoning instead of killing them.

Battle with them is against their right of protection of their blood. Mere presumption of Abu Bakr cannot be a ground for their killing.

In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated on the authority of Usamah bin Zaid that: The Prophet sent us to Hirqa.64 In the morning we attacked the pagans there and defeated them. I and one of Ansaar reached them. When we were among them, one shouted: There is no god except Allah. The Ansaari who was with me left him unhurt, but I killed him. When we returned and reported the event to the Prophet he told me: Usamah! Did you kill him after he had uttered there is no god except Allah?

I told the Prophet: I thought he meant refuge by uttering the name of God.

The Prophet repeated his words so much, I wished I were not a Muslim before that day.

Allamah Sharafuddin writes: Usamah wished thus because he thought that all his deeds such as prayers, fasting, being in the company of the Prophet, holy wars, paying Zakat and going to Hajj all have gone in vain. They cannot wipe out the sin of killing a man who had just become a Muslim. He knew that the sin of killing a Muslim had destroyed all his virtuous deeds.

The feelings of Usamah represent his fear that he would not be forgiven or redeemed. For this very reason, he wished that he were a Muslim after that incident of killing as the Prophet has said that Islam washes all sins preceding it.

We think it is enough for the reader to understand the worth of: ‘There is no god but Allah’ and its sayer.

Reliable books by Sunni authors are full of such traditions that show the dignity of Muslim blood.65

Accordingly the incident of Usamah clearly indicates that killing a Muslim only because of his not paying Zakat is not allowed and the case becomes more serious if the reason for non-payment is not rebellion but a suspicion on his part about the truth or legitimacy of Caliph. They doubted the right on the part of Abu Bakr to be Caliph. So they were in hesitation to make the payment. Therefore they did not deserve to be killed.”66

Allamah Sharafuddin has protested in a way that even the Sunni sect concurs with it. He protested for the killing of Malik bin Nuwairah. He writes:

“The crime of Malik bin Nuwairah was his refusal to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. It was at a time when he was occupied in investigation about legality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate to honor his own commitment to God and His Prophet. It is obvious that the intention of Malik was not to create difference among Muslims nor did he reject Zakat itself nor did he doubt about Islam and its laws. Malik did not want to fight with the Caliph. So it is better to determine the cause first for his non-payment and then decide what to do. It is not so easy to kill a Muslim merely at a pretext. Malik bin Nuwairah in view of the position he had among his people obviously saw it fit to investigate the situation whether the new government that had come into being in Medina and was busy in crushing its opponents and occupied in spotting and eliminating hidden adversaries of Abu Bakr from the scene was really a legitimate government.

That is the only reason why Malik bin Nuwairah abstained from paying Zakat and began to investigate so that he pay to the proper person and thus fulfill his duty properly.

So it was necessary that Abu Bakr and his officials should have given time to Malik to make his decision in the light of his investigations and act accordingly. They should not have dealt with him in such haste.

Because he was not a denier of Zakat, he did not differentiate between Zakat and prayer and was not one that considered it necessary to fight Abu Bakr or other Muslims.

This was the reality of Malik and his people’s refusal to pay Zakat.

Malik was not one to wage war among Muslims. Malik even advised his tribe members to preserve their Islam.

He further advised them to disperse and not camp all together at one place lest Khalid may think that they are planning an armed confrontation.”67

Conclusively it can be said that:

“The fact is that there was no Murtad at all in the period of Abu Bakr. Those whom Abu Bakr fought were within Islam and none had renounced faith. A few could have been there who had not become Muslims since the beginning itself. A few refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. So how they became Murtad?”68

“After Zahra’s martyrdom, the government sent troops to deal with those who were outside Medina as they had not given Bay’at to Abu Bakr.69

Even though Abu Bakr’s regime tried to label all their opponents as Murtads and under this excuse fight and kill them, they could not identify all of them as apostates.

The accusation of being a Murtad was the best means to destroy the enemy. So he used this means, which was to his own ends.

But analysis shows that a multitude of the people was not Murtad and did not deserve such loss of life and property even though Caliph’s circular reads:

Whoever does not submit to the government should be killed or burnt alive and his women and children should be taken as captives.70”71

Historical documents show that the plan of Abu Bakr was so harsh and brutal against his opponents that it is said:

A) “Fight them even if they refuse to give a camel’s tether.72)(73)

B) The circular of the Caliph was thus:

I have given the assignment to this army to kill by sword those who have departed from religion of Islam. Furthermore, they have a mandate to burn them alive and make their widows and children captives…”74

Now the question is – after all these scrutinies and analyses can it still be claimed:

“The stand of Abu Bakr was strong and he showed no weakness in his motive of saving the religion of Islam. Where religion of Islam was concerned, he was without any consideration. God had inspired him with such strength. The religion is indebted to him.”75

Whenever we recall those strict stands of Abu Bakr towards those who refused to pay Zakat we come to realize his honesty, truth, trustworthiness and straight forwardness in carrying out the mandate vested to him by God.”!76

“The right was with Abu Bakr in relation to those who did not pay Zakat.”77

Please do pay attention to the following statement:

“Abu Bakr’s government did not observe any distinction between a Muslim and an apostate. He dealt with all equally like Arabs of the age of ignorance. When they waged a battle, the victor had a right to take the widows as concubines and make their children captives and confiscate their property.

On this ground, when the government suppressed so-called apostates they propagated that they killed non-Muslims. Likewise, they attacked the towns, killed and murdered whomever they liked, captured and arrested some. Their children were enslaved, womenfolk made concubines and belongings they took for themselves.

As a result, a considerable wealth found its way to Medina and was hoarded there.

This process had no compatibility with teachings of Islam. That is why it reflected an unhealthy and undesirable effect in the eyes of many. People considered that the acts the Caliph committed, such as murder, plunder, killing and pillage was part of Islamic teachings. This process influenced to a great extent on the minds of the people to think – rather to believe – that Islam is a religion of sword; and it spread by force.”78

Although these crimes and inhumane acts, which are against Islamic teachings and mankind, are recorded in history yet they claim:

“Whatever the Caliph did throughout the period of his Caliphate was in accordance with traditions of Prophet and God’s commandments.”79

While the fact is that:

“From what we said it seems that Abu Bakr’s army fought with Muslims who neither drew out swords nor announced a war. Rather they repeatedly declared their Islam and prayed with Muslims in the same row.

Yes, Abu Bakr’s army fought against such men, made them captives, killed them after accusing them of non-payment of Zakat. They did not even ask them to pay the Zakat to see whether they would pay or not.

There are still several other motives in these battles. There are ends and aims, hidden, which have no bearing on Zakat nor related to its payment…”80

Examples of Caliphate facing its legal opponents

A – Malik Bin Nuwairah

“All historians, Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir and Yaqoobi say: Abu Bakr sent an army under Khalid bin Waleed to tribes that had not given Bay’at to Abu Bakr after passing away of Prophet or did not pay Zakat to collectors of Abu Bakr, so that they may be forced to make the payment.”81

“Malik bin Nuwairah was a brave man, a poet and chief of a part of Bani Tameem tribe. He was a companion of the Prophet and his agent. Malik did not send to Medina, alms82 he had collected after passing away of Prophet. He returned the amounts to persons he had collected from.83”84

When Khalid bin Waleed arrived at Bitah85 he gave an assignment to Zirar bin Azwer and sent him with a few soldiers to attack the tribe of Malik. Abu Qatadah86 too was among them. They made a surprise attack on Malik’s tribe. Abu Qatadah used to narrate after a long time since this incident: We told them if you are telling the truth that you are Muslims, keep your weapons on the ground. They agreed and placed their weapons on the ground and stood to pray87.88

Ibn Abil Hadeed writes in his Sharh Nahjul Balagha: As soon as Malik and his associates placed their weapons on the ground, Zirar and his friends rushed up on them and tying them with ropes dragged them to Khalid bin Waleed.89”90

“Khalid claims that Malik bin Nuwairah had renounced Islam. In other words, he had become a Murtad. Khalid’s reasoning was that Malik uttered some words which made him a Murtad.

On the other hand Malik denied having uttered any words at all. Malik had this to say:

I am a Muslim. I have neither amended nor changed any of its regulations. Abu Qatadah and Abdullah bin Umar also attested the statements of Malik, but Khalid refused. He first killed Malik, then ordered Zirar to behead him. After that, Khalid the same night, slept with his widow91.”92

“In Isabah it is narrated from Zubair bin Bikkar on the authority of Ibn Shuhab (Zuhri) that Malik bin Nuwairah had lavish hair. After having killed Malik Khalid ordered that his severed head be placed under the cooking pot. The fire consumed the hair and had not yet reached to the skin that the food was cooked.”93

From this historical document we can conclude that Malik was a hairy man. The soldiers placed the severed heads under cooking pots. Malik’s head did not burn completely because the flames that rose up from the hair cooked the food.94

Two Reminders

One – We draw your attention to two points raised by Allamah Sharafuddin in his book, Ijtihaad Dar Maqaabile Nass with regard to murder of Malik bin Nuwairah and his tribe:

“Bukhari with regard to delegating Ali and Khalid to Yemen writes in his Sahih: A man stood and said: O Prophet! Fear God. The Prophet said: Woe on you! Am I not the most deserving person in the world to be in refuge of God and most befitting to be in piety?

Khalid said: O Prophet of God! Shall I cut his throat?

The Prophet said: No. Perhaps this man performs prayers.95

How nice it would have been if Khalid had remembered Prophet’s words. If only Khalid had shown some respect to prayers. Did not Malik pray? Why Khalid did not honor prayers of Malik? Khalid disobeyed the Prophet in killing Malik. Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatadah Ansaari gave evidence to Khalid that Malik had performed the Morning Prayer that day. Then on what ground he killed him?”96

“According to Yaqubi’s statement in his history, Abu Qatadah went to Abu Bakr and reported the case to him and said: By God, I shall not go anywhere under the command of Khalid. He killed Malik inspite of his being a Muslim.

Tabari too has mentioned that Abu Qatadah was among those who gave evidence that Malik was a Muslim.

In Tarikh Abil Fida it is mentioned that Abu Bakr and Umar got the news and learnt of the events. Abu Bakr said: I will never execute him (Khalid), because he has erred in his Ijtihaad. I will not sheath the sword that Allah had pulled on them.”97

“It is mentioned in several sources such as Wafayaat al-Ayaan, Tarikh Abul Fida and Kanzul Ayaan: When the news of Khalid’s killing Malik and raping his widow reached Abu Bakr and Umar, Abu Bakr said that he would not stone Khalid to death. He is a jurisprudent and has erred in his jurisprudence.

Umar asked him to dismiss Khalid.98

Abu Bakr said: I will not sheath the sword God has pulled out.”99

“Ibn Abil Hadeed writes: Abu Bakr said: Shut up Umar! This is not our first mistake. You better hold your tongue about Khalid.”100

We must remark here:

“Abu Bakr during his rule appointed Khalid as the commander of his army in Syria.101 Then he ordered him in advance to be the commander of forces in Baghdad upon his return from Syria.”102

Khalid was stone-hearted. In the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate his record was such:

“When Khalid bin Waleed moved to Buzakha he sent Akhasheh bin Mehsin and Thabit bin Aqram as scouts ahead of the forces. They reached near a place where Tolaiha with his brother had come to evaluate the army of Islam. They accidentally met Khalid’s scouts and killed them.

Tabari narrates from Ibn Kalbi: Khalid with his army passed by the corpse of Thabit and rode on it by mistake. They dead body got trampled under the hooves of horses…”103

Two – it is interesting that inspite of these crimes committed by Khalid and murder of Malik in that beastial way they still praise Abu Bakr:

“Elasticity and leniency of Abu Bakr towards Khalid bin Waleed is appreciable. In the view of Abu Bakr the mistake and error of Khalid was ignorable.”104

In the end, they add:

“Anas bin Malik says that companions of Prophet were not willing to wage a war against those who refused to pay Zakat. They said that they were performers of prayers. But Abu Bakr pulled out the sword and set out alone. People too followed him…105

According to the above narration, Abu Bakr was alone. He pulled the sword himself only thus he went. People saw him going alone and were compelled to trot behind him.

According to this report it seems that Abu Bakr himself fought Malik bin Nuwairah. On the other hand all historians write (rather to exculpate Abu Bakr), that Khalid ordered Zirar bin Azwar and he killed Malik cutting off his head.”106

“The fact is that Malik was a man of reputation. He was chief of a tribe. At that time Abu Bakr’s rule was still weak and they feared that a little movement could easily topple their Caliphate.

The interior too was shaky. Groups like Bani Hashim and Ali at their head, Khazrij under the leadership of Saad bin Ubadah and Quraish with Abu Sufyan were still their opponents.

So this courageous and honorable man of Bani Tameem regarded as real danger a person who was a few miles from Medina and thought of some way to be safe from him. So he should be by any means and at any pretext be eliminated and the elimination should be such as to serve a lesson to others.

As a result of all this scrutiny, we can say that the real cause of the murder of Malik and one actually responsible of it was Abu Bakr himself – not Khalid.”107

“Abu Bakr was very much enraged at Malik bin Nuwairah for not considering him a lawful successor of the Prophet and had given orders to Khalid bin Waleed to kill Malik wherever he was found.”108

B – Saad Bin Ubadah

Saad bin Ubadah Khazraji was the first to reach the meeting of Ansaar at Saqifah Bani Saadah, and he was the most popular candidate. Muhajireen joined a little later. They changed the course of discourse, which resulted in Abu Bakr’s becoming Caliph. As a matter of fact, Muhajireen made Abu Bakr the Caliph.

“They left Saad alone for a few days since the plot of Saqifah. Later he was invited to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr as all his people and relatives had paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Saad answered: By God! I will shoot all my arrows on you till they are exhausted. I will color my lance with your blood. But I will not give Bay’at to you. As long as I could, I will fight you, but I will not keep my hand in yours.

When they heard these words of Saad, Umar told Abu Bakr not to let Saad go unless he pays allegiance.

However Basheer bin Saad109 said that he would not pay allegiance to you because he has become stubborn to you. He added: It is not so easy to kill him. If he is killed all his relatives, sons, associates and family members too should be killed. If you let him go110 he would not harm you because he is only one.

They accepted the guidance of Basheer and left Saad.

Saad did not attend any of their meetings nor joined them in daily and Friday prayers. During the Hajj season, he was not seen with them.111

It continued like this until Abu Bakr died and Umar came to power.112”113

One day Umar saw Saad in a lane of Medina. Umar called him: O, Saad! Saad too replied at once: O, Umar!

The Caliph asked: Are you not the one who used to say such and such? Saad said: Yes, I am that man. Now you have reached to power. By God, I hate your company.

Umar said: One who hates his neighbor changes the place. Not much time passed114 but that Saad left Medina for Syria in the early days of Umar’s Caliphate…115

Balazari writes in his book Ansaab al-Ashraaf:

Saad bin Ubadah did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and left for Syria.

Umar engaged a man, instructed him to go to Syria and persuade Saad to pay allegiance by hook or crook. He asked him to play any trick he knew to get Saad’s acknowledgement to Umar’s Caliphate. In case of failure he asked him to kill Saad by the help of God. The hired man headed to Syria, met Saad in Howaryeen and opened the subject of allegiance. He tried to persuade him to acknowledge Umar’s Caliphate but when he got disappointed, he pulled out the arrow from the case that hung at his back and shot him. It immediately cut the main vein and Saad died at once.116 In the book, Tabsiratul Awaam it is mentioned that Umar had hired Muhammad bin Musailaima Ansaari117 for this secret job. Muhammad accordingly went to Syria and shot Saad bin Ubadah with an arrow.118

It is also said that Khalid bin Waleed was also present in Syria at that time and he assisted Muhammad bin Musailaima in eliminating Saad…119

Ibn Abde Rabb says: Saad bin Ubadah’s body was found with an arrow in his heart. They spread a rumor that Jinns had killed Saad by two arrows in his heart.120”121

C – Umm Farwa

“This lady named Umm Farwa122 announced her opposition to Abu Bakr when she said: I recognize only Ali as a real and true successor of Prophet. She was executed by the orders of Abu Bakr.”123

Fujayat Al-Salma Was Burnt

“There was a man of Bani Salim tribe named Fujayat124 whose main occupations were theft, murder, plunder and rowdism. At last he was captured125 and brought to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr ordered them to make a fire in the praying square of Medina. Then he ordered that he should be thrown into it alive with hands and legs tied.

So it was done and he died in this way. While he was dying he was calling out the testimonies of being a Muslim at the pitch of his voice.”126

“Tabari and Ibn Athir have narrated the story thus:

“A man named Fujayat came to Abu Bakr from the tribe of Bani Salim and said: I am Muslim. I want to fight against the apostates, but I have neither a horse nor a weapon. Give me a horse and a weapon. Abu Bakr provided him what he was short of, but Fujayat instead of going on his mission went to the highways and began to loot people or shoot them if they resisted. He rode the horse looting and plundering. A man named Najba bin Abi al-Mitha from Bani Shareed tribe helped him.

When news reached Abu Bakr he wrote to Tarifa bin Hajir: The enemy of God, Fujayat, came to me and announced he was a Muslim. He asked me to provide him with a horse and weapon so he can fight the apostates. I provided him the same, but now I hear that this enemy of God is looting Muslims and pagans alike.127So you with the help of Muslims under your command arrest or kill him. If you arrest him, bring him to me.

Tarifa bin Hajir headed towards Fujayat. Both met and shooting without aim or target took place. In the meantime, Najba bin Abi al-Mitha got hurt and died. Fujayat understood that Muslims were determined to arrest and execute him. He spoke to Tarifa: You have neither preference nor any superiority over me. You have an assignment from Abu Bakr and I too have orders from him.

Tarifa bin Abi Hajar said: If you are telling the truth put down the weapon and come with me to Abu Bakr.

Fujayat agreed. They both (Fujayat and Tarifa) went to Abu Bakr.

As soon as he saw Fujayat he ordered Tarifa to take him to Baqi and burn him alive.

In another narration Tabari says that Tarifa gathered fuel wood as much as he could and ignited the fire. Then he tied up Fujayat and threw him into the huge flames.

In this regard, Ibn Athir has this to say: Tarifa tied the hands of Fujayat to his neck. Then he was tied by ropes round his body then he threw him into the fire until he died.”128

- 1. Quoted from: Saqifah wa Fadak, Pg. 4; Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 219.

- 2. Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pg. 83.

- 3. Quoted from: Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 12.

- 4. Quoted from: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 222.

- 5. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 433.

- 6. He was a respectable personality of Khazraj tribe.

- 7. Quoted from: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 210.

- 8. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 174.

- 9. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 174.

- 10. Quoted from: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 210; Tarikh Khamees, Vol. 2, Pgs. 187 & 188; Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, Pg. 56; Sirah Halabiyya, Vol. 3, Pg. 396.

- 11. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pg. 40.

- 12. Quoted from: Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, Pg. 56; Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 210; Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 10.

- 13. Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 2, Pg. 253; Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol. 1, Pg. 156.

- 14. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 219.

- 15. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pgs. 75-16.

- 16. With regards Bani Aslam, many traditions were fabricated to say they were not nomads but Medinites. So that since they were first to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr ahead of Ansaar and Muhajireen it would give them credit and distinction and also block the way of those who object to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

- 17. Mustafa Dilshad Tehrani: Meeras Rabooda (Usurped inheritance), Pg. 74; quoting from: Al-Jamal, Pg. 199.

- 18. Wilfred Madelung: Succession to Muhammad, Pg. 55.

- 19. Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 221.

- 20. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pg. 56.

- 21. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 61.

- 22. Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 338.

- 23. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 47.

- 24. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 39-46.

- 25. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 46-47 Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari has launched a vast research. He has written the outcome of his toil in the second volume of his book Abdullah bin Saba.

- 26. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 43-47.

- 27. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 56; we have mentioned actual parts of this incident in this book.

- 28. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 63-77.

- 29. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 56 & 61.

- 30. There are many other battles in Islam like the wars of Ridda which are also fabricated, like battle of Salasil, Ableh, Mazar, Walja, Alees, Amghishia, Furat Badkhuli, battle of Haseed, battle of Masbagh, battle of Thani, battle of Zameel and battle of Farez. etc.
Refer: Allamah Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 339.

- 31. Refer: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane,Vol. 2, Pg. 46; Pg. 79 & Vol. 1, Pg. 338.

- 32. When Abu Bakr finished the Ridda issue he deemed it befitting to send his soldiers to Syria. He wrote letters to the people of Mecca, Taif and Yemen and all Arabs of Najd and Hijaz inviting them to Holy war and the spoils that they would attain in Rome. People complied with his invitation in greed of spoils. They started from all corners to meet in Medina.
Perusal of these pages clearly shows that the incidents or the battles in the historical books of Sunni sect are only intended to create some greatness for Khalid bin Waleed in a frame of his inhuman behavior. We recommend the work of Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari Abdullah bin Saba and other historical stories Vol. 1, Pg. 329. We further recommend the same source Vol. 2, Pgs. 83-113 for the scrutiny of these battles which the Sunni sect attach great importance to, because in their opinion it is a collection of pride and glory for Khalid bin Waleed – the Commander in the army of Abu Bakr, for the sake of better acquaintance with a real part of the above said battles which is the invention of Saif bin Umar we recommend Vol. 2 of ‘Historical Stories’ Pgs. 88, 91, 100, 101, 112 and 113.

- 33. Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 217.

- 34. Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 339.

- 35. Mustafa Iskandari: Baazkhwani Andisha-e-Taqreeb, Pg. 218.

- 36. Ibid. Pg. 221.

- 37. Refer: Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 215-216.

- 38. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 19.

- 39. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 188.

- 40. For details about the types of apostasy in the view of contemporary historians refer to: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pgs. 97-102.

- 41. Quoted from: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 311.

- 42. Quoted from: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 128.

- 43. Quoted from: Al-Mahalli, Vol. 11, Pg. 193.

- 44. Quoted from: Farq-e-Shia (Translation and notes by Dr. Muhammad Jawad Mashkoor), Pg. 7; Al-Maqaalaat wal Farq (Edited with notes by Dr. Muhammad Jawad Mashkoor), Pg. 4.

- 45. Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 255.

- 46. Quoted from: Al-Majmua al-Kamila, Vol. 1 (Abqarya Abu Bakr), Pg. 306.

- 47. Quoted from: Nusoos Al-Ridha fit Tarikh at-Tabari, Pg. 91.

- 48. Quoted from: Al-Islam wa Usool al-Hukm, Pgs. 193-197.

- 49. Quoted from: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane, Vol. 1, Pg. 141.

- 50. Clive Balansi, a Spanish scholar of 6th century.

- 51. Quoted from: Tarikh Al-Ridha, Pg. 10.

- 52. Quoted from: Majma al-Imthaal, Vol. 2, Pg. 65.

- 53. It is worthy of mention that at the beginning of his book he says: We have not included these narrations as Shias will use them to prove their stand.

- 54. He was from Khazraj tribe from the clan of Bayaz.

- 55. Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pg. 58; Kitab Al-Ridha, Pgs. 171-172.

- 56. Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 65-66; Kitab Al-Ridha, Pgs. 186 & 188 (Waqidi instead of Bani Aqal has written Bani Atik and instead of Bani Himyar he has mentioned Bani Jamr).

- 57. Quoted from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 66-87.

- 58. Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 246; Sawaiqul Mohreqa, Pg. 86; Al-Jamal, Pg. 118; Al-Izaah, Pg. 132.

- 59. Quoted from: Tabaqat, Vol. 7, Pg. 396 (In the account of Khalid bin Waleed); Riyadh an-Nazarah, Vol. 1, Pg. 100.

- 60. Quoted from: Tabaqat, Vol. 7, Pgs. 101-102; Al-Futuh, Pgs. 73-74.

- 61. For explanation about Saif bin Umar refer to: Khamsoon wa Miya Sahabi Mukhtaliq of Allamah Al-Askari and also Nusoos Al-Ridha fee Tarikh Tabari of Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Aale Yasin, Pgs. 24-29.

- 62. Whatever Tabari has quoted from people other than Saif (like Abi Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, Ibn Ishaq and Madaini) is very little because in those there is no mention of apostasy.

- 63. Masoodpur Sayyid Aaqaai: Chashma dar Bistar, Pgs. 89-97.

- 64. In Oman.

- 65. Allamah Sharafuddin in his another book, Al-Fusool al-Muhimma fee Taleef al-Ummah has mentioned another tradition about this:
A person asked the Messenger of Allah (S) that if he were fighting with an infidel who has cut off his hand and then hides behind a tree and says that he has become a Muslim, is it allowed to kill him? The Holy Prophet (S) said that it is not allowed.

- 66. Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 127-132.

- 67. Allamah Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 134-135.

- 68. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 191.

- 69. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 113-114.

- 70. Quoted from: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pgs. 226-227.

- 71. Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 222.

- 72. Ibid. Pg. 224; quoting from: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 311 Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 17, Pg. 209.

- 73. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 196; quoting from: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 311.

- 74. Ibid. quoting from: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pgs. 226-227.

- 75. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 10, Summer 81, Pg. 19.

- 76. Salah Abdul Fattah al-Khalidi (Translated by Abdul Aziz Sulaimi): Khulafa-e-Raashideen Az Khilafat Taa Shahadat (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 83.

- 77. Ibid. Khulafa-e-Raashideen Az Khilafat Taa Shahadat (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 82.

- 78. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 14, Pgs. 40-41.

- 79. Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira (1st Edition 1380), Pg. 47.

- 80. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pg. 240.

- 81. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 65-66.

- 82. Today the term used is ‘Zakat’.

- 83. According to records he distributed it among the poor people of his clan, Allamah Sharafuddin in his book: Ijtihad dar Maqabil-e-Nass, Pg. 154 has explained that Malik was famous for his kindness to the orphans and poor women and he used to distribute Zakat among the poor under approval of the Prophet.

- 84. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah, Pg. 65; quoting from: Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 336.

- 85. Center of Bani Yarbu.

- 86. He was a companion of the Prophet who took part in the Battle of Uhad and battles after that.

- 87. On the basis of this they were really Muslims.

- 88. Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari (European Edition), Vol. 1, Pgs. 1927-1928.

- 89. It is seen that they were told to arrange prayers so that they would keep their weapons away.

- 90. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pgs. 123-124.

- 91. Umm Tameem binte Minhal.

- 92. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 125; quoting from: Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 3, Pg. 132.

- 93. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 202-203; quoting from: Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 503; Al-Isabah, Vol. 3, Pg. 337; Tarikh Ibn Kathir, Vol. 6, Pg. 321; Tarikh Abul Fida, Pg. 158..

- 94. For more details refer to Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Section Six, Pgs. 81-91.

- 95. The author says: This tradition is also quoted by Ahmad bin Hanbal from Abu Saeed Khudri on page 4 of the third part of Musnad.

- 96. Allamah Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 130-131.

- 97. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pgs. 204-205.

- 98. The different policy of Umar with regard to Khalid bin Waleed was to remove Khalid from political power in order to settle personal difference, since he was from Bani Adi and Waleed was from Bani Makhzoom.

- 99. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pgs. 127-128; quoting from: Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 3, Pg. 132, Tr. 227; Wafayaat Ayaan, Vol. 5, Pg. 67; Tarikh Abul Fida, Pg. 158.

- 100. Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 139-140; quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 1 Pg. 179.

- 101. Refer: Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pgs. 189; quoting from Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 13; Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 617.

- 102. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 189; quoting from Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 603.

- 103. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 56-57.

- 104. Yusuf Karzai (Translated by Jalil Bahraminiya): Weeshgihai Kulli Islam (1st Edition), Pgs. 373-374.

- 105. Quoted from: Haqqi: Tafseer Ruhul Bayan, under the exegesis of Verse 54, Surah Maidah

- 106. Ahmad Asadnejad: Wasi-e-Payambar Keest? Pgs. 34-35.

- 107. Ibid. Pg. 32.

- 108. Wilfred Madelung: Succession to Muhammad, Pgs. 75-76.

- 109. He was cousin of Saad bin Ubadah and the first one to give Bayyat to Abu Bakr.

- 110. Quoted from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 3, Pg. 459; Tarikh Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 126.

- 111. Except for this there was no other display of opposition by Saad, yet he was murdered.

- 112. Quoted from: Riyadh an-Nazarah, Vol. 1, Pg. 168.

- 113. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 63-64.

- 114. It is seen that on one hand since the early day of Caliphate of Umar Khalid bin Waleed himself preferred to remain in Syria and after a short period was found dead under suspicious circumstances on the other hand there is mention in history that he also had a hand in the murder of Saad, so the exile of Saad bin Ubadah must have taken place during the period of Abu Bakr or the early part of the Caliphate of Umar.

- 115. Quoted from: Tabaqat, Vol. 2, Pg. 145; Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol. 6, Pg. 90.

- 116. Quoted from: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 589; Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 3, Pgs. 64-65.

- 117. It is proved that he was among those who besieged the house of His Eminence, Ali and Fatima (‘a) (Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pgs. 443-444).

- 118. It is proved that he was among those who besieged the house of His Eminence, Ali and Fatima (‘a) (Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pgs. 443-444).

- 119. Quoted from: Tabsiratul Awaam, Pg. 32.

- 120. Quoted from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 3, Pgs. 64-65.

- 121. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 70-72.

- 122. An Ansari lady.

- 123. Muhammad Baqir Ansari: Jarfai Ghadeer, Pg. 177; quoting from: Ath-Thaqib fil Manaqib, Pg. 226.

- 124. Ayaas bin Abdullah.

- 125. “He set out to fight the apostates from the side of Abu Bakr and in the end became a highway robber in Najd.” Yusuf Gholami: Pas az Ghuroob (After Sunset), Pg. 227.

- 126. Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Jawahiri: Abu Bakr, Pg. 64; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 266 (Events of year 11); Kamil Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 211; Al-Isabah, Vol. 2, Pg. 322.

- 127. This was the same attitude that Ziyad bin Labeed, Akrama bin Abu Jahl and Khalid bin Waleed practiced with the opponents of Abu Bakr. On the basis of this it could be said that they must have been appointed by Abu Bakr. But they have made the matter doubtful to exculpate the Caliph.

- 128. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Doo Maktab Dar Islam (Two Schools of Islam) Vol. 2 (Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation) Pgs. 118-119; quoting from: Tarikh Ibn Kathir, Vol. 9, Pg. 319; Tarikh Tabari, (1st Edition) Vol. 3, Pgs. 234-235; Tarikh Ibn Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 146.

Discourse 5: Analysis Of Individual And Social Liberties

Dealing With Youth

A) Dealing With Zaid Bin Muawiyah Qashari

Historical records show that the Caliph did not pay least regard to request of a Muslim youth. For instance, the youth was fond of a particular camel and thus another camel was presented by his people as Zakat. But the Caliph’s men insisted that the former be given in Zakat.

We present here a historical document that indicates how the feelings of a youth were crushed in Abu Bakr’s rule:

“In Yemen, Abu Bakr’s agent1 was collecting Zakat2 when his choice fell on an infant camel, which belonged to a youth. The youth requested him to take another instead because it was his favorite.

The agent rejected the request.

The youth approached the chief of tribe3 who mediated and recommended but the agent refused.

The chief of tribe went to the herd of camels collected from people against Zakat. He took that infant camel from the herd and gave it to the youth, its owner.

The agent reported the matter to Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr immediately sent troops there.

The people rioted and the tribes of Yemen rose to fight against them.

When the people of Daba became aware of the fighting of Kinda tribe they too rioted and expelled Abu Bakr’s agent from their town.

Abu Bakr wrote to the commander of the army to go there and fight them.

He went there, surrounded them and caused for them great many difficulties.

People approached Abu Bakr’s agent and offered peace to him saying they would pay whatever tax was incumbent upon them.
4
The agent said: I don’t accept unless you admit that we are on the right and you are wrong. Our killed ones are in heaven and yours in hell. You must accept our decision.

They had no way but to accept. Then the agent ordered them to leave their weapons and go out of their native town which also they did.

In the meantime, the soldiers entered the town. One by one cut the throats of the elders. Womenfolk and children were made captives and their property was seized. Then they went to Abu Bakr with the captives and spoils.

After this, they went ahead with their tyranny, attacked Kinda and cut the throats of dignitaries and others were dispatched to Medina.

Such and similar cases abound during the period of Abu Bakr.”5

The details of the incident are:

“Abu Bakr wrote to Ziyad bin Labeed and Muhajireen of Bani Umayyah Makhzumi to come together and obtain people’s acknowledgement to his Caliphate. If any refused to give allegiance or pay Zakat, they must fight him – whoever it may be.

Athim says in Futuh:

Ziyad bin Labeed was involved in collecting Zakat from people, some of whom paid willingly and some under force, unwillingly. He was too strict and harsh with people in collecting tax. One day it so happened that a youth, Zaid Ibn Muawiyah Qashari, accidentally saw his camel with the stamp of Zakat over it among the camels which Ziyad bin Labeed had collected from people. The herd was still there and not yet moved to be sent to Abu Bakr. The youth approached Haritha bin Surakha one of the heads of Kinda tribe and said:

O cousin! Ziyad bin Labeed has taken one of my camels and stamped it and kept it among camels of Zakat. I don’t mind paying Zakat but I am very much fond of this particular camel. Please talk with Ziyad and ask him to take another instead.

Athim adds: Haritha bin Surakha approached Ziyad bin Labeed and said: If possible, do a favor to this youth to return his camel and take another instead.

Ziyad answered:

This camel in now a part of God’s property and also stamped as such. I don’t want to substitute it by any other.

Haritha said:

We are asking you to do a favor. Do this by way of charity and generosity. It will be better than to do it by force. Ziyad was also enraged by Haritha’s statement and he said:

I will not let this camel to go. I’ll see who can take it from me.

Athim goes on:

Then Haritha went to the herd and spotted the camel, took it out and gave it to the youth and told him: If anyone asks you anything about it, break his nose by the sword. Then, he added:

We obeyed the Prophet of God when he was alive. After his death had any from members of his Household succeeded him we would have obeyed him also. But the son of Abu Qahafa has no obligation on us neither is it incumbent on us to obey him or pay allegiance to him.

Athim continues:

When these couplets reached Ziyad bin Labeed dread overtook him: He feared to lose the whole herd of camels he had collected as Zakat. In the darkness of the night, which was a good covering to him, he together with his colleagues fled from Hadhramaut to Medina. Ziyad bin Labeed was driving the herd to surrender them to Abu Bakr. All of a sudden he changed his mind. He sent the camels to Medina with a reliable person and advised the man not to say a word to Abu Bakr about the developments that had taken place. He himself returned to Bani Zahal bin Mawia – a branch of Kinda tribes and reported to them all the events. He also invited them to accept Abu Bakr as Caliph and pay allegiance to him and remain obedient to Abu Bakr. Ziyad went from tribe to tribe among Kinda with this same mission. Wherever he went and extended invitation to obey Abu Bakr, he received a negative answer. They did not entertain him as guests are usually received among Arabs because of his mission.6

Disappointed, Ziyad had no alternative but to return to Medina. He met Abu Bakr and reported the matter to him adding a little mischief. He told Abu Bakr that Kinda tribes about to renounce Islam and return to their previous infidelity. So soon they will be Murtads.

Abu Bakr sent an army of four thousand soldiers to Hadhramaut under the command of Ziyad himself.7

Ziyad first attacked Bani Hind – a division of Kinda and defeated them. Then he set out towards another branch named Banu Aqal. Then he attacked the sub-division named Bani Hujar. In this sub-division, he made a surprise attack. After this, he headed to Bani Jumair. It is not that he went to pay friendly visits. Wherever he went he waged a battle and fought the inhabitants, killed their elders, made their widows and orphans captives. So wherever he went, death and destruction accompanied him. The bloodshed at the hands of Ziyad bin Labeed and cruelties he committed began to be talked of and reached Ashath bin Qais. Ashath bin Qais was very much perturbed and he called for a domestic meeting consisting of his cousins only to decide what should be done. They headed towards Ziyad, met him near the town of Tareem. Fighting started and with it started bloodshed. Ashath bin Qais killed three hundred soldiers of Ziyad and he was defeated. Ziyad found himself nowhere. He fled to the town of Tareem and took refuge there. From there he reported the matter in a letter to his master – Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr saw he held no more cards. So he wrote a letter to Ashath and tried to make peace with him. The messenger while talking to Ashath accused him of apostasy. One of the cousins of Ashath rose, pulled to the sword and brought it down on the head of the messenger who died instantly.

This incident deprived Ashath of his friends. Most of his friends deserted him and fled. Now only two thousand persons remained with Ashath.

Ziyad wrote to Abu Bakr that the messenger has been killed. Abu Bakr said: If they refused to pay Zakat to me or paid less even by a camel’s tether from the quantity the Prophet had fixed for them I will wage war against them. Abu Bakr wrote to Akrama bin Abi Jahl asking him to mobilize a group of Meccans and those who obeyed him and to go to Ziyad bin Labeed. Accordingly, Akrama moved towards Ziyad with two thousand mounted men from Quraish and those who had a treaty with him. The inhabitants of Daba got the intelligence of Akrama’s arrival in the town of Ma’arab. They became angry by this and made a plan to engage Akrama in some occupation or other and not to let him go and attack their cousins from Kinda tribe and other than Kinda. They had expelled Hudhaifah bin Mehsin – the agent of Abu Bakr for reporting the revolt of Daba people to Abu Bakr. This development enraged Abu Bakr who wrote to Akrama: I had instructed you in my previous letter to move towards Hadhramaut. But now upon receipt of this letter please change your route and go to Daba. Deal with the inhabitants as they deserve. Do not be in the least careless in carrying out the mission, which is the theme of this letter. Upon completion of the task arrest the people and send them to me. Afterwards you go to Ziyad bin Labeed. I hope that God will conquer the land of Hadhramaut at your hands.”8

“Akrama, son of Abu Jahl, acted according to the contents of the letter, moved towards Daba9 with a battalion and faced the inhabitants there. A battle ensued. The attacks were lethal and fatally destructive to such an extent that the armed generation of Daba could not stand before the army of Akrama.

The military pursued and killed them wherever they were found and even dragged them out of their hiding places to kill. But the swords of Abu Bakr’s army under Akrama’s command remained yet thirsty. Altogether one hundred men of Daba were killed in this battle a few could manage to escape to neighboring towns or remote lands for their life.10 Some seeing no hope to be safe from those dreadful swords, which were tempered in revenge, surrendered to Akrama.

Akrama’s soldiers killed the elders, commanders and heads of Daba people. The folks that became captive were three hundred in number; among them were warriors, children and women. They were sent to Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr wanted to kill the men and distribute among Muslims the children and women. But Umar did not allow.11…”12

What all these tyrannies and atrocities, in addition to bloodshed on a wide scale, were for? It started from a baby camel!!!

Why should Abu Bakr’s agent behave in such a harsh, impolite and inhumane way with them? Had he shown least leniency to that youth no one would have been killed. Had he given that camel back to the youth who had promised to substitute it by another, what wrong would have been there in it?

Was it such a serious matter that it had to be responded with military attacks and bloodshed of hundreds of Muslims?!!

“While the Prophet had ordered his agents and officials to be mild and polite with the people and strictly enjoined them to not show any inconsideration to values of brotherhood, humanity and morals. The way Abu Bakr handled this and several such cases had, indeed, enraged the magnanimous soul of Prophet. For instance, when the Prophet sent Maaz bin Jabal to Yemen he instructed him as follows:

“Maaz! You are going to the people of the book – Jews and Christians. They do not deny God and His religion. You only invite them to oneness of God and prophethood of Muhammad. If they comply you inform them that God had made five times prayers incumbent on Muslims. If they accept this, you make them aware of Zakat which God has made incumbent on the rich and wealthy people to benefit of needy and poor ones. If they accept this, you do not take what is dear to them under pretext of Zakat.

Do fear the curse of a victim and an oppressed one. God swiftly complies with the curse of victims.

This tradition is mentioned in reliable sources such as Sahih of Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Darimi, Malik and Ibn Hanbal.

Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari writes about things which were dear to the people and must not be taken in Zakat from them. The Prophet means anything which is good or worthy and which is dear to its owner must not be snatched from him. The real philosophy of Zakat is (a) help to needy ones, (b) providing satisfaction to wealthy people that their property is blessed by God because of the share they have given in Zakat to poor. Therefore, in no way a Zakat payer should be wounded in his thoughts, feelings and conjectures. If so, it will disturb the system.

In commenting on the Prophet’s warning: Do fear the curse of a victim he says: The Prophet means to prohibit torture and harassment of people. He warns us to not do things, which could become a cause for a victim to curse us.

Thus, was the instruction of Prophet was with regard to Zakat and the way it should be collected from people. Now the reader himself can see and judge how Abu Bakr acted in this suspect. He acted exactly opposite to Prophet’s teachings and instructions and did so under the claim of being the Caliph of God’s Prophet. The Prophet took Zakat and distributed it among the poor and needy people. But Abu Bakr collected Zakat through his agents and sent it to wealthy personalities of Quraish. The needy ones had no share in it. So there is obvious contrast between what they did and what the Prophet had taught to do or himself used to do. They went against Prophet’s teachings, took from people things they held dear. They took by force while the Prophet was against it. They did not heed their requests and petitions. For the sake of a baby camel, they waged bloody battles that enveloped several tribes…”13

When they realized that what they had done was wrong they gave it a covering by accusing them falsely of apostasy.

Following are sources of traditions of Prophet on Zakat with regard to the command that things dear to owners must not be taken:

1 – Sahih Bukhari, Chapter: Charities, Vol. 1, Pg. 181

2 – Ibid. Chapter: Costly things, Vol. 1, Pg. 176

3 – Fath al-Bari, Vol. 4, Pg. 65-97

4 – Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, Pg. 233

5 – Sunan Punch Guneh: Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Darimi and Muwatta Malik, Chapter of the Regulations of Zakat.”14

Inspite of these historical documents can it be accepted that:

“This staunch stand and strong determination of Abu Bakr was the right and faith he obtained directly from fountains of bounty of prophethood. This enabled him to attain the position of Siddiq Akbar (The great true one).”!15

“The stand of Abu Bakr Siddiq arose from that foundation. His insistence on truth and his endeavor to avoid giving least allowance or distinction to any is also based on his ardent faith.”!16

“If we ponder a little how deep his statesmanship was and how wise his policies that he repelled every riot and suppressed every revolt and brought under control the whole peninsula of Arabia overcoming the political corruption; we are compelled to feel so lowly before this great man in respect and awe.”!17

B) Behavior With Nasr Bin Hajjaj

There is a historical document, which says that the Second Caliph expelled a youth to Basrah because he was much attractive and handsome. He had no other sin. He did not allow him to return as long as he was alive.

“Abdullah bin Buraid says: Umar used to go out into the town at night. One night he saw a house that its door was closed but from inside came a female voice that was singing:…18

…the next day he [the Caliph] called for Nasr bin Hajjaj.

When he came the Caliph saw that he was young, handsome and exceptionally charming.

Umar ordered to shave his head from the front and when it was done, the forehead became more prominent and it enhanced his elegance.

The Caliph said: Go and shave the rest of your head.

When he did so he became still more beautiful.

Umar said: O, son of Hajjaj! You should not live in the town I live.

Then he expelled him to Basrah19

Nasr remained in Basrah for a long time. He wrote a letter to Umar with a few verses.

He criticized Umar as to what his sin was that he were expelled. You presumed about me wrongly. You deprived me of my right to live in my native town. Finally, he ended the letter with a request to let him return. Umar received the letter and after reading said:

He should not come back as long as I am alive.”20

Sacrifices of Limitations

Although much is claimed about individual and social liberties during this period, such as:

“In the days of Umar’s Caliphate, one day a woman met him in the streets of Medina. She started to advise him about running the government. Umar continued listening to her in a most respectable and humble manner. Then he promised her with gratitude to act upon her advice.”!21

“See the liberty: A woman advises and criticizes the Caliph, the powerful one of his time, Umar too stops on the street, listens to her without showing any uneasiness and even says: you are right while I wrong.”22

But records show something else.

A) Ibn Abbas

“The roughness of Umar reached to the extent that Ibn Abbas could not dare to mention a religious rule about his inheritance:

Umar died. Now Ibn Abbas could make the demand. He was criticized why he did not say during the time of Umar. Ibn Abbas answered: By

God, I was afraid of him.”23

“Ibn Abbas says: There was a thing. I waited for two years to ask about it. The thing that withheld me was the fear of Umar.24”25

B) Abu Ayyub

“Abu Ayyub Ansaari did not dare to act on the traditions of Prophet. Umar used to abuse, scold and beat anyone who acted according to traditions of the Prophet.”26

C) Slave Of Zubair Bin Awwam

“Once after Asr prayer a slave of Zubair stood to pray. At the same moment, he became aware that Umar was coming towards him with his cane27 so he fled from there at once.”28

D) Sabeegh Bin Isal

“Sabeegh bin Isal Tameemi29 was a dignitary and chief of tribe. He was very fond to learn and understand the meanings of Quran. Therefore he traveled to various towns where companions of Prophet lived such as Kufa, Basrah, Damascus, Humis, Iskandaria and he ask them meanings of Quranic verses.

Amr Aas wrote to Umar that there was a man who asked about the commentary of Quran.

Umar told him to send him to Medina.

So he was dispatched to Medina. He came to the Caliph and had not yet seated when Umar asked him: What is the meaning of: Wazzariyat zarwan?

Umar said: You are that same one! Come here! Then with the branch of dates30 hit him on his head a hundred times.

The man said: What was in my head has now gone. Then Umar ordered him to be imprisoned.

When he arose his clothes were smeared with blood.

When he recovered, Umar ordered him to be brought again.

This time he beat him a hundred times at the waist so that it was badly bruised. Then he told them to throw him into the prison.

After that the man was brought before Umar for the third time. The man said: If you want to kill me, kill without any hindrance. Relieve me.

Umar expelled him to Basrah. He wrote a letter to the governor of Basrah, Abu Moosa Ashari, to see no one contacted him. He must be boycotted.

This man used to go to congregation prayers. But nobody talked to him. After a long time he approached Abu Moosa and asked him to recommend to Umar using his good offices. Abu Moosa wrote to Umar that the man had repented, could he please forgive him? Umar accepted. Then people began to interact with him.

It is mentioned that the man was one of the dignitaries. But after this incident he lost his station.”31

“The punishment of Sabeegh was so serious and harsh that it rang the bell of danger to all.

A man asked Ibn Abbas the meaning of a Quranic verse and Ibn Abbas explained it to him.

The man repeated his question again and again. Ibn Abbas got tired and said:

Your case is like that of Sabeegh whom Umar had beaten up.

Why do you want the same treatment?

Umar got intelligence and he beat up the man such that his back bled.”32

“And it is also mentioned that: A man approached Umar and asked the meaning of a Quranic verse.

Umar hit him with a cane he was carrying so that his turban fell down...”33

“Abdur Rahman bin Yazeed narrates: A man asked Umar the meaning of a particular word of Quran. Umar ran after him with a lash in hand.”34

“It is also narrated that: A man came to Umar and told him that he knew the most difficult part of Quran.

Umar lashed his head and said: What business do you have with Quran?”35

E) Narrators Of Traditions

“Abu Huraira says: In the days of Umar, there was no one who could narrate any saying of Prophet but that it was certain that his back would bleed.”36

From the above preceding instances one can understand to what extent liberties existed in the time of Umar. Neither religious laws nor Quran or traditions were allowed to be mentioned.

Roughness and Extremism

Here are a few cases of roughness of the Caliph taken from historical annals:

A) “He was the first to always carry a cane.”37

B) “Ibn Shubbeh narrates that a man told Umar:

People are angry with you. People are angry with you. People hate you!

Umar asked: Why?

The man replied: Because of your tongue and your cane.”38

On the other hand it is claimed that:

“No one was unhappy in his rule. All were pleased, happy and satisfied. They had trust in his justice.”39

“When Uthman announced that he would act according to the Book of God, Sunnah of Prophet and method of Abu Bakr and Umar, people rejoiced because they were fond of the God-pleasing programs40 of the two preceding Caliphs.”!41

On the whole it can be said:

“The spiritual personality of the Caliph had a great influence in his executive activities and political job. He was of short temper42 and from viewpoint of his thoughts, he was an extremist.”43

C) “He viewed Islam only from a harsh and merciless angle. This was the reason that Jabla bin Aiham, one of the kings of Syria who had committed a mistake, fled from Mecca to Syria and renounced Islam.”44

“The story was: Five hundred riders from tribes of Akka and Jafna entered Medina. Their complexion was Arabic. Their dress was woven with threads of gold and silver. Jibla (an Arab speaking the Ghasani language of Jordan) was leading them. His mother, Maria wore a costly crown inlaid with jewels. They all became Muslims. Muslims rejoiced their conversion because of the long following they had. Jibla went with his followers in the company of the Caliph to Hajj. While King Jibla was going round Kaaba according to the rules of Hajj a man of Fuzara tribe stepped on the cloth the king had wrapped around himself; so it became loose and rolled down. Jibla slapped the man who complained to Umar and Umar called for Jibla. He ordered the victim to slap Jibla or that Jibla should obtain the man’s forgiveness and satisfy him.

Umar made the case so hard that Jibla dispaired from satisfying Umar and the complainant.

Jibla fled in the night with his followers and associates and landed in Constantine. The harsh and rough behavior of Umar made him scornful to Islam, so all of them became Christians again.

Hercules, the emperor of Rome, received them with great honor and distinction, accorded them a grand welcome and provided every facility and pleasure to them.

Inspite of this, Jibla used to cry and lament for having had lost and given up the faith of Islam.”45

It seems Umar had forgotten the recommendation of Zaid bin Thabit with regard to Ubadah bin Samit. So Umar’s obstinacy towards Jibla was like one he showed to Amr Aas and his son. He did so to crush their personality.

Ibn Abi al-Hadeed compares Imam Ali (‘a) with all Caliphs thus:

“The three Caliphs who preceded, acted according to the dictates of their personal interests and in accordance with their hidden proclivities. They did not pay regard whether it was in accordance with laws of Islam or not.

There is no doubt that one who acts as he desires becomes distant from faith. He cannot perform what goes against his desire though it could be in line with religion. As a result, there cannot be discipline in him and no coherence in his actions.”46

Allamah Ja’far Murtadha based on the above analysis, writes about the stand of Umar against Egyptians and his reply to his critics in the same atmosphere.

D) Some came from Egypt to investigate with Umar for his not acting in some cases according to Quran. Umar maintained that he had acted according to his personal interpretation of Quran. Then he asked them:

“Do people of Medina know for what you have come here? They said: No.

Umar said: Had they known the reason of your coming I would have punished you so much that it could be a lesson for others.”47

E) So can it be believed that a woman advised him and he listened to her patiently? The records say:

Roughness Of Umar Was A Block To Criticize Him

“Ayesha, daughter of Uthman, says that Umar was a harsh and rough man. Therefore no one dared to criticize him.”48

Umar was harsher to ladies

“Women were terrified with Umar because he was harsher towards them.”49

For example:

1 – “Abdul Razzaq Sanani says: Ibrahim Nakhai narrates that Umar used to roam in the rows of women. Once he smelt perfume from the lines of women. He declared: If I knew which of you has applied this perfume I would have done such and such.

The woman who had used the perfume urinated out of fear.”50

2 – “Umar’s face was so dreadful that a pregnant woman saw him and miscarried.”51

The incident occurred at a time when Umar summoned the woman to court. The woman was terrified and she miscarried.

While it is said in his praise:

“He was the first leader of the people and a democratic one in Islam.”52

Historical records show:

3 – “The harsh behavior raised the objection of people. They approached Abdur Rahman bin Auf to talk to Umar in this respect and to tell him that daughters in home fear him. Umar said in reply:

People must be dealt with in only this way. Else, they cannot be reformed. If I don’t do thus they will take off my dress from my body.53

He himself had acknowledged that people were terrified of him.54

In fact, this behavior prevented people to oppose him in any matter.55”56

- 1. His name was Ziyad bin Labeed; he was among those who besieged the house of His Eminence, Ali and Fatima (‘a) (Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pgs. 443-444).

- 2. Zakat.

- 3. His name was Haritha bin Suraqa.

- 4. It is surprising that inspite of this historical proof it is claimed that: “Before military campaign Hazrat Abu Bakr started a peaceful campaign.” (Fareedoon Islamniya: Ashra-e-Mubashira, Pg. 35).

- 5. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 14, Pgs. 40-41 & Saqifah (Study about the formation of government after the passing away of the Holy Prophet), Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pgs. 68-69; quoting from: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 49-61. The details of this incident can be seen in his book Abdullah bin Saba, Vol. 1, Pgs. 175-237 & Vol. 2, Pgs. 51-77.

- 6. From this it can be surmised that Ziyad did not invite these tribes to accept Islam because they were already Muslims and they accepted the commands of Prayer and Zakat. It was only that they rejected Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and refused to pay Zakat to him.

- 7. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 218-223.

- 8. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 224-229.

- 9. This incident alone is sufficient to prove that the people of Oman and Mohra were wrongly accused of apostasy.

- 10. In the text of the document, the word of Muslims is used so that the opposite group could be posed to be of apostates.

- 11. Because on one hand tribal prejudice did not permit him this and on the other hand Ashath bin Qais Kindi was his staunch supporter.

- 12. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 69.

- 13. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 236-237.

- 14. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 250.

- 15. Sayyid Abul Hasan Nadwi (Translation Muhammad Qasim Qasimi): Yaqeen Mardaan-e-Khuda (3rd Edition 1381), Pg. 36.

- 16. Salah Abdul Fattah al-Khalidi (Translated by Abdul Aziz Sulaimi): Khulafa-e-Raashideen Az Khilafat Taa Shahadat (1st Edition 1382), Pg. 80.

- 17. Sayyid Abdur Raheem Khateeb: Shaykhain (6th Edition 1382), Pg. 52.

- 18. In couplets composed by him he had expressed love for a young man called Nasr bin Hajjaj.

- 19. Umar issued same order for the cousin of Nasr bin Hajjaj. (Refer: Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 3, Pg. 385).

- 20. Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 355-356; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 3, Pg. 122.

- 21. Kamaal Ruhani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 8, (7000 copies), Winter 80, Pg. 58.

- 22. Ibid. Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 8, Winter 80, Pg. 59.

- 23. Quoted from: Al-Mahalli, Vol. 8, Pgs. 279-280; Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 11, Pg. 28.

- 24. Quoted from: Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 126.

- 25. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 110.

- 26. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pg. 124; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 433.

- 27. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 66; quoting from: Al-Marifah wat Tarikh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 364-365.

- 28. Refer: Ahmad al-Kubra: Min Hayat al-Khaleefa, Pg. 375-377.

- 29. Refer: Ahmad al-Kubra: Min Hayat al-Khaleefa, Pg. 375-377.

- 30. A broom.

- 31. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Naqsh-e-Aaimma Dar Ahya-e-Deen (Role of Imams in the Revival of Religion, Vol. 14, Pgs. 50-51; quoting from: Sunan Darimi, Vol. 1, Pgs. 54-55; Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, Pg. 232; Itqan Suyuti, Vol. 2, Pg. 4;Tafseer Qurtubi, Vol. 18, Pg. 29.

- 32. Ustad Ali Koorani: Tadween-e-Quran, Pg. 119; quoting from: Ad-Durre Manthur, Vol. 3, Pg. 161.

- 33. Ibid. quoting from: Sunan Darimi, Vol. 1, Pg. 54.

- 34. Ibid. quoting from: Ad-Durre Manthur, Vol. 6, Pg. 317.

- 35. Ibid. quoting from: Ad-Durre Manthur, Vol. 2, Pg. 227.

- 36. Najah Ata at-Tai: Nazaryaat al-Khaleefatain, Vol. 2, Pg. 477; quoting from: Mukhtasar Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol. 3, Pg. 11.

- 37. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 65; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 209; Tarikh al-Khulafa, Pg. 137; Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 3, Pg. 282.

- 38. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 65; quoting from: Tarikh Madinatul Munawwara, Vol. 2, Pg. 858.

- 39. Ali Tantawi (Translated by Abu Bakr Hasanzadeh): Dastan-e-Zindagani-e-Umar, (1st & 2nd Edition 1380), Pg. 78.

- 40. Author of the article has considered the audience in Masjid as Emigrants and Helpers!

- 41. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 14, Summer 82, Pg. 16.

- 42. Quoted from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 1, Pg. 183.

- 43. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 65.

- 44. Ibid. Pg. 67; quoting from: Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 1, Pg. 265; Al-Futuh, Vol. 2, Pgs. 302-304.

- 45. Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin: Ijtihaad Dar Maqabil-e-Nass (Translated by Ali Dawani), Pgs. 346-347; quoting from: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 1, Pg. 187.

- 46. Allamah Ja’far Murtadha Amili: Tahlili Az Zindagi-e-Siyasi Imam Hasan Mujtaba (‘a), Pgs. 123-124; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 12, Pg. 83.

- 47. Ibid. Pg. 117; quoting from: Hayatus Sahaba, Vol. 3, Pg. 260.

- 48. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 69; quoting from: Nasrud Durar, Vol. 4, Pg. 34.

- 49. Shaheed Murtadha Mutahhari: Seeri Dar Nahjul Balagha, Pg. 160.

- 50. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 66; quoting from: Al-Musannaf, Vol. 4, Pgs. 343-344.

- 51. Ali Muhammad Meer Jalili: Imam Ali (‘a) wa Zamaamdaaraan (Imam Ali and the Rulers), Pg. 111; quoting from: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 1, Pg. 183; Tarikh Umar bin Khattab, Pg. 125.

- 52. Ahmad Naseeb (translated by Saaduddin Shaykh Ahmadi): Mohabbat-e-Payambar Dar Qalb-e-Yaaranash (1st Edition 1380), Pgs. 85-86.

- 53. Quoted from: Nasrud Durar, Vol. 2, Pg. 35; Uyun al- Akhbaar, Vol. 1, Pg. 12.

- 54. Quoted from: Hayatul Haiwan, Vol. 1, Pg. 49.

- 55. Quoted from: Nasrud Durar, Vol. 4, Pgs. 34-35.

- 56. Rasool Ja’faryan: Tarikh Khulafa, Pg. 67.

Conclusion: Zahra’s speech describes the social conditions after usurpation of Caliphate and identifies the ills in politics and government

In the end we refer to five points indicated by Zahra to Ansaar ladies in her speech. And we end this volume thereat.

The ladies visited Zahra to see her and inquire into her health because Zahra was sick at home as her sides were broken due to the door falling on her by the kick of her enemy.

Zahra sketched to them a picture of society of tomorrow – a society deprived of Imamate and Guardianship of Ali bin Abi Talib (‘a) and molded into the present illegitimately running government:

“Beware of pulled out swords, sharp and destructive – and a tyrant attack advancing atrocities and a haughty stubbornness of oppressors.

All your affairs will be upset except the haughtiness of tyrant and you will be given your lot but little.

Your gatherings will be separated by swords. You will harvest nothing but fruit of disappointed hope. Where will you go; and where will your destiny end.”1

A history of thirteen years of national rivalry from Saqifah and finally its surrender to Bani Umayyah who held it so tightly under their claws showed deviation of Muslims from the path prescribed by Quran through His Prophet and the Prophet announced it in Ghadeer. The consequences that followed – how horrible, how dreadful and how destructively fatal!

It was not only the matter of tyranny to Ahlul Bayt (‘a). The tyrannies committed against the dearest ones to God, against the purified personalities of time immemorial cannot be confined to writing by any pen. Although endeavors were made to make history forget or take it as little as possible the rightfulness of Ali to Caliphate, which was usurped so openly by the conspiracy of Saqifah. While they claim:

“People liked the method of Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar! And were really fond of it! They were sure their Caliphate was truly based on the method of Prophet. They could live in safety under this Caliphate from tyranny and danger.”!2

- 1. Mahdi Ja’fari: Mastoor Aaftaab-e-Sarmad, Pgs. 190-194; quoting from: Ibn Taifur: Balaghatun Nisa, Pg. 32; Jauhari: Saqifah wa Fadak, Pg. 117; Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 16, Pg. 233; Umar Reza Kahhala: Alaamun Nisa, Vol. 3, Pg. 1219.

- 2. Abdul Qadir Dahqaan Siraawaani: Article quoted in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 14, Summer 82, Pg. 16.

A Victim Lost in Saqifah Vol. 4: Allegiance (Bay’at) of Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a) to Caliphs – contamination of Shia belief in Imamate

Section One: Allegiance Of Amirul Momineen (‘a) To Caliphs

Motive Of This Research

Ali’s Bay’at with Abu Bakr is repeatedly mentioned in various styles and used in different ways to bring out Abu Bakr’s Caliphate from its characteristic feature of usurpation that surrounds it.

So they claim:

“It is said that Ali was tied by a rope round his neck and his house was destroyed. I do not know such an Ali. He was not a man of such an insult. He wisely paid allegiance and remained firm on it indicating his satisfaction.”!1

“This proves that Ali did not view their Caliphate illegitimate.”2

“After he (Ali) gave Bay’at. He even mended and dressed the shortcomings in Caliphs’ proceedings. This confirms the legitimacy of Caliphs.”3

“Ali has given Bay’at to both (Abu Bakr and Umar). Of course he has done this prudently.”4

“The behavior and conduct of Ali and his reverend sons towards Caliphs was such that it could be called an approval and pledge of allegiance.”5

Those who make the claims (that Ali gave allegiance to Abu Bakr) have an aim:

A) Ali’s acknowledgment to Abu Bakr serves an umbrella to them, covering illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Besides it supports their persistence in their design to prove Ali’s consent and concurrence.

B) To benefit from Ali’s acknowledgment by removing from the public mind suspicion of illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Besides, to pose it as a Caliphate having God’s pleasure. In other words, to provide a sanctity under shade of Ali’s allegiance.

Therefore, we must go through these allegations thoroughly:

In the meantime, we would like to scrutinize these two claims:

1) Claims that Ali’s Bay’at tantamount to public popularity of Abu Bakr’s rule.

2) Claims that acceptance of Abu Bakr’s rule proves Ali’s allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Therefore, in this analysis we shall evaluate the sources claiming that Ali gave allegiance to Abu Bakr. They are as follows:

Source One: Divine legitimacy (Legitimacy granted by God)

Source Two: Public Popularity (Standard of public accord)

Source Three: Existence (A fact/occurrence)

We shall again thoroughly investigate historical documents related to these claims to find the extent of Ali’s approval to Abu Bakr’s rule.

Because the above subject has taken for granted that Ali in fact gave allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Accordingly we can evaluate Ali’s belief in legitimacy and popularity of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and thereby gauge its authenticity in the light of History.

- 1. Mushgan Ilanlow: In his article in Sharq Daily, Issue no. 14, Abaan 1383.

- 2. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 176.

- 3. Ibid. Footnote on the book Shahira-e-Ittihaad, Pgs. 28-29.

- 4. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 167.

- 5. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.

Discourse 1: Absence Of Ali’s Approval To Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

There is no doubt that if Abu Bakr’ Caliphate had been legitimate in the view of His Eminence, Ali in any of these aspects – legitimacy, popularity, entity – he would have never refrained from paying allegiance and would have never tried to overthrow it through armed uprising. So the fact is that there was no approval at all from the side of Ali (‘a).1

Historical Documents

Moosa bin Uqbah (d. 141) narrates from Ibn Shuhab Zuhri:

“Some Muhajireen were enraged about the allegiance of Abu Bakr, among them were Ali and Zubair…and they had weapons with them.”2

Ibn Mitham Bahrani (d. 679) narrates from the book, Waqatus Siffeen by Nasr bin Muzahim Minqari (d. 212) that Ali said:

“Had I found forty men of determination I would have fought.”3

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli (d. 656) also has narrated the same words of Ali:

“Had I found forty men of determination!”4

After quoting these words in Waqatus Siffeen he writes:

“A large number of biographers have quoted this statement.”5

In the same way in his book he has quoted the text of letter Muawiyah had written to Ali in which he has quoted this statement of His Eminence, Ali (‘a):

“Had I forty men of determination I would have fought them.”

The firm determination of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to have an armed uprising was that when – due to some exigencies6 – he became hopeless and confined himself to his house he remarked as follows:

“If I had not feared discord among Muslims and their going back to infidelity and not worried about the destruction of the religion of Islam, I would have behaved with them in a different manner.”7

“And by Allah! If there had been no risk of discord among Muslims as a result of which they would have reverted to infidelity, we would have in every possible way tried to bring down the regime.”8

According to Shia sources the dissatisfaction of Amirul Momineen (‘a) was to such an extent that he did not accept it for even a moment; so how can it be possible that he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Thus he said:

“By God, if I had the number of supporters that Talut had or supporters the Prophet had in battle of Badr, and they were inimical to you - I would have fought you with sword till you returned to truth. The separation among you would have suited you best and most befitting to you.

O God judge between us with truth and You are the best of judges.

The narrator says: Then he left the mosque and passed through Baseer9 where around thirty sheep were there. He pointed to the sheep and said: By God, if I had men of this number of sheep, sincere and true to God and His Prophet, I would have overthrown him from power.

By nightfall, three hundred and sixty persons gathered around him and pledged their support to him until death.

Ali asked them to come the next day to Ahjaaris Zait10 with their heads shaved. Ali shaved his head. Among those three hundred and sixty came none except Abu Dharr, Miqdad, Huzaifa bin Yamani, Ammar bin Yasir and Salman.

Then Ali raised his hands towards the sky and said:

If a covenant had not been taken from me by the Prophet I would have drowned the opponents in the gulf of their ambitions and brought down upon their heads fatal destructive lightning of death. Of course they will come to know soon.”11

Conclusion

Says Ibn Maytham Bahrani (d. 679):

“The event of Saqifah, occurrence of differences between companions and Ali’s refusal to pay allegiance is an evident fact which can neither be denied nor concealed. It is from here that eternal differences and rivalry among them followed. The truth is that rivalry remained fixed and alive between Ali and he that seized the Caliphate in his time. The tyranny that resulted is open and clear. It remains at constancy and morally it declares what happened.”12

Therefore, it can be said:

Sayings and behavior of Ali towards Abu Bakr’s Caliphate indicate his harsh and serious opposition. This open opposition they claim to be his acceptance and approval of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

Ali’s strong resistance and refusal to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr finally resulted in those atrocities. The armed attack on house of Divine Revelation, then their entrance into the House, the insults on Zahra, the only daughter of the

Prophet, then beatings and physical hurt committed against her, then the miscarriage of her unborn child, Mohsin – what all this represents…?

Even when Amirul Momineen (‘a) was disappointed of the possibility of armed uprising and possibility of overthrowing the tyrant rule of Abu Bakr, he still did not accept the validity of Abu Bakr’s regime.

It is natural that such denial can never be construed as his approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in any of the aspects we have stated above.

On the basis of this it can be said:

Amirul Momineen (‘a) neither approved Abu Bakr’s Caliphate nor he accepted it.

As a result:

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, in his view, was illegal and usurped because it did not belong to him. Caliphate was his right according to Prophet’s declaration in Ghadeer. It was usurpation. It was not only illegitimate but even short of popularity and identity.

What Is The Meaning Of Silence?

As mentioned in first chapter of second volume of this book, Amirul Momineen (‘a) due some exigencies, some of which we listed, changed his stance from planning an armed uprising into sitting quiet at home.

In other words, he became obliged to undergo those sore and bitter conditions prevalent at that time, such as:

A) To forego the armed uprising against Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and to ignore any preparations in that regard.

B) To avoid campaigning seriously and abstain from disclosing any confidential matters.

C) To let go without opposition anything having a bearing on Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, or anything in relation to it.

While enduring these things was so hard that in his own words it was: “…a thorn in my eyes and a bone in my throat…”13

It was bitter and painful.

On the basis of this requirement of the above matter, absence of confronting the rulers which is described as silence can in no way be interpreted to be approval of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in any of its aspects: legitimacy, popularity or factuality.

In the same way ‘acceptance of silence and giving up of armed uprising’ has no relation and necessity of his taking steps to his paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, though his silence is wrongly interpreted and it is claimed:

“Ali saw himself more deserving to Caliphate, but for the sake of the interests of Muslims he did Bay’at with Abu Bakr.”14

Now it should be asked:

At what time, at which ground and under what conditions it took place.

Can such acceptance fulfill the necessary requirement of granting legitimacy to the ruler?

Or because of difference between the meaning of silence and paying allegiance does there exist any bearing between the two? The sense and the application of the word “acknowledgment” or “paying allegiance” in such expressions is wrong.

What is the Meaning of Allegiance?

In order to understand the meaning of Bay’at (that is the matter they claim to have occurred between Ali and Abu Bakr) and to know why the regime was so much concerned about getting the Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (‘a) let us study the following to get a compendious sense and a concise description of this word:

Ibn Khaldun (d. 808) writes in his book Muqaddima:

“To pay allegiance (Bay’at in Arabic) means a covenant, a fact that commits one to be obedient to the other. One who enters into Bay’at with the other (or an Amir, a master) surrenders to his view in relation to himself and Muslims. He has no say in affairs concerning him or others. In short, one resigns to other. This is the sense of Bay’at. After accomplishment of Bay’at, he must be resigned irrespective of his willingness or otherwise.

It was customary at the time of Bay’at that one laid his hand into the hand of Amir or Lord as a token of his submission to him.

This is the general sense and common meaning in religion and common parlance.”15

In the light of this and other several similar descriptions it can be said:

A) Individuals indicate obedience to one another by means of their actions and conduct. They show their resignation to his orders and authority which is called Bay’at.

Bay’at with Caliph means acknowledgement to his being a Caliph and obedience to his orders. This indicates acceptance of his Caliphate and rule.

B) Through Bay’at people leave their possibilities, properties and their social interests at the disposal of their leader or Imam or Caliph. By this means and method the leadership or Caliphate is established in society and attains a ground for its legitimacy. Those who enter into Bay’at are committed to honor the choice and opinion of the Bay’at taker.

C) Through their Bay’at people are committed to be loyal and devoted to the Bay’at-taker. They also are committed to provide possibilities to strengthen the stand of government and make its foundation stronger. All these activities are reflected in theirBay’at to the Caliph.

Conclusion

Bay’at is an act by which one’s support, consent to obedience, commitment of loyalty and sincerity and acceptance of his (the Bay’at-taker) power or office is expressed.

It is a means through which people display their approval and acknowledgement to the aforesaid items. It is a formal declaration.

Reminder

A) Those who believe in Ali’s Bay’at to Abu Bakr either do not speak with knowledge or use the word in its dictionary meaning to convey the above connotation.

B) There is a great difference in the meaning of silence and abandoning armed uprising. It is absolutely wrong as it is not possible at all to use the word Bay’at even for the sake of reference.

In other words, the term Bay’at carries a particular sense it cannot be used in places which do not fit its sense or do not fall within its range. The word silence is interpreted in a sense of Bay’at and then the very word of Bay’at is attributed to Ali that he performed Bay’at with Abu Bakr because he had maintained a long silence.

Comparison Of Silence To Bay’at

Three aspects of the topics:

A) Imam Ali’s (‘a) untiring efforts to overthrow Abu Bakr’s Caliphate; his belief in overthrowing the regime – even after his getting disappointed that it would be fruitful and beneficial. Though he gave up hope of armed uprising he continued his efforts.

B) Imam Ali’s (‘a) adamancy in his denial to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr until (according to Sunnis) firewood was gathered and Zahra’s house was set afire.

C) The accurate interpretation of Ali’s social and political stand that is regarded as silence:

What was forced upon Ali (‘a) can be sketched as follows:

1 – Absence of effective efforts to have armed uprising against Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and his ignoring it. Since no necessary ground was available to him he had to accept this situation.

2 – He had to forsake stiff opposition and tough steps because of their evil results and unsuitable conditions.

3 – Absence of opposition from all sides to orders of the Caliph and all acts of the regime as a result of bad consequences and unfavorable conditions because of no general support or lack of consent of the society.

So it is clear how difficult it was to undergo such conditions in spite of one’s unwillingness. This is termed as silence with regard to Imam Ali’s (‘a) political and social stands. He (Ali) adopted this policy; and this policy had no bearing on his Bay’at or no relation to it that it be construed as Bay’at to Abu Bakr. This silence did not bind Ali to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr.

Far before these developments,16 His Eminence (‘a) had occupied himself in collecting verses and chapters of Quran in his house. He had been disappointed of any possibility of bringing the downfall of illegitimate rule. The main setback was state of society, which was not yet ripe to foresee the dangers in store if the people betrayed him.

It is obvious that to yield to such conditions and arrange thereon the political and social stands of his own should not create any obligation to give his acceptance and approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Or that it could be used to prove that the Bay’at really took place.

Mere occurrence of something cannot be a proof of its legitimacy. To prove the establishment of Abu Bakr’s regime cannot be a proof that he had the allegiance of Amirul Momineen (‘a). Neither can his silence be construed as approval.

To accept a factual happening does not denote one is in agreement to it. So, Ali’s silence does not call for Bay’at.

Conditions Of Achieving Bay’at

“Placing ones hand into that of other in Arab parlance is completion of a transaction.

But in Islam it is a sign of a covenant which means acknowledgement to one’s authority or superiority. It represents obedience of Bay’at giver to Bay’at taker and his submission to him.

The analysis of the word Bay’at in the days of the Prophet shows that it was based on three points:

1 – The Bay’at giver

2 – The Bay’at taker

3 – Commitment of obedience to rules of Bay’at

According to this order, the object of Bay’at must be clearly known and conceived because its performance is committed.

So according to traditions of Prophet, as a token of acceptance one puts his hand into the hand of Bay’at taker. Thus Bay’at is concluded.

So Bay’at takes to it a religious feature17 and becomes a religious term.

But these days most Muslims do not know the conditions of getting Bay’at on religious basis in Islam. Therefore it is incumbent to explain that:

In Islam Bay’at is sought when the following three conditions exist:

1 – The Bay’at giver should have fitness and eligibility of Bay’at. He must be free and independent.

2 – The Bay’at taker should have fitness and eligibility to take Bay’at from him.

3 – Bay’at must be for a legitimate object and aim.

On the basis of this:

Bay’at must be concluded on the basis of willingness and inclination. Bay’at loses its authenticity and characteristic if it is obtained by force.

As such, if it is performed under coercion or tyranny it is illegitimate and invalid.

Bay’at is wrong and invalid if concluded with one who is a known sinner or if Bay’at will lead to disobedience to God or to commit a sinful act. In all these cases it has no validity.

So Bay’at is an Islamic term and Islam has framed its rules and regulations.

The above can be summed up as follows:

Bay’at in Arabic means giving hand into the hand of another as a token of completion of a transaction. In Islam it means that the Bay’at giver shall endeavor to perform obligations to the interest of Bay’at obtainer. If relative conditions do not exist, Islamic Bay’at cannot be accomplished.

Conditions of Bay’at are:

1 – Bay’at of a mad or an immature is not valid.

2 – Bay’at obtained by force and from an acknowledged sinner is not correct.

3 – Bay’at to perform things, which go against religion, is of no value.

Bay’at in the light of above is like a business deal. It takes place with mutual consent and agreement. It loses its strength if obtained by force or fraud.

Likewise, Bay’at could not be performed for sin or disobedience to God. Bay’at cannot be done with an open sinner.”18

Imam Ali (‘a) on this basis has said:

“My Bay’at to them did not constitute any right for them as they had no right to take Bay’at and it does not represent my willingness or consent to them.”19

So according to the words of Ali, his Bay’at to Abu Bakr had no validity.

To understand still more accurately the above words we shall scrutinize historical documents related to their demand from Ali to give Bay’at. Then we shall see the result against the conditions of obtaining Bay’at.

- 1. With this aim His Eminence Ali (‘a) accompanied by Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) went door to door of Ansaar.
Refer: Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 29; Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pg. 13 & Vol. 2, Pg. 47.

- 2. Ibn Mitham Bahrani: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pgs. 26-27.

- 3. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 22.

- 4. The text mentioned by Ibn Abil Hadeed is as follows: Ali said: I have no supporter except my own family members. I feared their death. Ali always used to say particularly after the death of the Prophet: Alas, if I had forty men of determination! This is mentioned by Nasr bin Muzahim in his book Waqatus Siffeen. Most biographers too have mentioned this. It is clear in the text of Ibn Abil Hadeed that the last part of His book, Maghazi has not reached us; but some narrators have quoted from it like: Kalai Andalusi (died 634): Al-Iktifa, Vol. 2, Pg. 446; Mohib Tabari (died 694): Riyadh an-Nazarah, Vol. 1, Pg. 241; Dayar Bakri: (died 982): Tarikh Khamees, Vol. 2, Pg. 169 the sentence is missing. So it is not known what Ali would have done had he got forty men of determination. This text reads in the writing of Abdul Salam Muhammad Haroon: Alas, if I had forty men ‘… then Ali said some other matter. So, here to the sentence is incomplete.
(Minqari: Waqatus Siffeen, Pg. 163)

- 5. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 47 This letter was written by Muawiyah to His Eminence, Ali (‘a).

- 6. Imam Muhammad Baqir (‘a) explained this matters in a way that there was nothing restraining Amirul Momineen (‘a) from mobilizing people against Abu Bakr except that he feared they would revert to their ignorance and apostize from Islam. (Thiqatul Islam Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 8, Pg. 295; Shaykh Tusi: Amali, Pg. 230).

- 7. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 307.

- 8. Shaykh Mufeed: Al-Jamal, Pg. 437.

- 9. A shed for keeping cattle and sheep.

- 10. A locality in Medina.

- 11. Thiqatul Islam Kulaini: Kafi, Vol. 8, Pgs. 32-33.

- 12. Ibn Mitham Bahrani: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 252.

- 13. “So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat.” (Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Shiqshiqya Sermon).

- 14. Muhammad Hadi Marefat: Zahidan Daily, Issue No. 12, Mehr 1382.

- 15. Abdur Rahman Khaldun: Muqaddimah (Translated by Muhammad Parvin Gunabadi), Vol. 1, Pg. 400.

- 16. Refer: Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi: Al-Hujoom Alaa Bait-e-Fatima, Pgs. 482-488.

- 17. Religious terminology (Allamah Al-Askari: Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation, Vol. 1, Pg. 125.).

- 18. Allamah Al-Askari: Outlooks of two schools about sources of Islamic legislation, Vol. 1, Pgs. 254-255; Pgs. 261-263; Pg. 310.

- 19. Dailami: Irshad al-Quloob, Pg. 396.

Discourse 2: Efforts To Obtain Imam Ali’s (‘a) Bay’at After The Prophet’s Demise

Narrations in Sunni sources about Bay’at taken from Imam Ali (‘a) can be classified into three categories:

First Category

Narrations under this category indicate that Ali entered into Bay’at willingly and openly with Abu Bakr immediately after the latter got Caliphate.

Second Category

Narrations under this category indicate that Ali entered into Bay’at willingly and openly with Abu Bakr after six months.

Third Category

Narrations under this category indicate unsuccessful attempts of supporters of Caliph to obtain Bay’at from Imam Ali (‘a) by force and compulsion.

Narrations under first and second categories are in contradiction to one another. Therefore they have neither credibility nor validity, hence they are discarded.1

On the basis of this there remain only narrations of third category that carry some weight and we shall investigate them thoroughly. These narrations are also mentioned in Shia sources hence we shall refer to them in this section.

In this section with reference to the book, al-Hujoom alal Baitul Fatima by Ustad Muhaqqiq Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi we shall explain how the Caliph and his associates made efforts to compel Amirul Momineen (‘a) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr and Ali’s persistent refusal to their demand to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. So that it becomes clear what value this Bay’at has.

Motive of Caliphate in taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a)

Even though Amirul Momineen (‘a) after trying to mobilize help for bringing down the regime retired dejected to his home the Caliphate system was not satisfied. They continued to make all efforts to extract allegiance from him at any cost. Silence of the Holy Imam (‘a) and his disinclination to take up an armed campaign began to be construed as his approval or rather readiness to give allegiance.

So from this aspect they wanted him come to the Mosque at rate and lend legitimacy to their regime and that Bay’at may be taken from him for Abu Bakr.2 And in this way by accepting the silence of His Eminence (‘a) they may show that it was customary.

Perhaps they also wanted to eliminate Amirul Momineen (‘a) under the pretext of his refusal to give Bay’at.

A Look At Historical Proofs And Documents In Sunni Sources

Waqidi (d. 207)

Document No. 1

“Ali and Zubair were enraged. They did not do Bay’at.

Umar shouted: Come out or we shall burn the house with you.

They still refused to come out. So he pulled both of them out by force and dragged them to Abu Bakr till they paid allegiance.”3

Some narrators of this report are:

Tabari Imami (4th century): Al-Mustarshid, Pg. 378

Ibn Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Ibn Tawoos (d. 664): Al-Taraif, Pgs. 238-239

Nasr bin Muzahim (d. 212)

Document No. 2

“Muawiyah wrote to Ali: Against all of them (means Caliphs) you committed tyranny (rebelled). This we came to know through your enraged looks, your words laced with scorn and rancor, sigh of your breast and unwillingness to co-operate with them. You were taken to each of them as a camel is dragged by its reins4 till you paid allegiance while you hated.”5

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibn Athim Kufi (d. 314): Al-Futuh, Vol. 2, Pg. 578

Ibn Abde Rabb (d. 328): Al-Iqd al-Fareed, Vol. 4, Pgs. 308-309

Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413): Al-Fusool Al-Mukhtar, Pg. 287

Khateeb Khwarizmi (d. 568): Al-Manaqib, Pg. 175

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 15, Pg. 74 & 186

Qalaqshandi (d. 821): Subh al-Ashi, Vol. 1, Pg. 273

Document No. 3

“[His Eminence, Ali (‘a) wrote in reply to Muawiyah:] I was dragged like a camel by its reins till I gave allegiance.”

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Razi (d. 406): Nahjul Balagha, Letter 28

Ibn Hamdoon (d. 562): Al-Tazkeratl Hamdonia, Vol. 7, Pg. 166

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 15, Pg. 183

Nuwairi (d. 737): Nihayatul Arab, Vol. 7, Pg. 236

Qalaqshandi (d. 821): Subh al-Ashi, Vol. 1, Pg. 276

Bawoni Shafei (d. 871): Jawahir al-Matalib, Vol. 1, Pg. 374

Document No. 4

“[Muawiyah wrote in reply to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr.]

Then the two (Abu Bakr and Umar) invited him (Ali) to their Bay’at. But he ignored and refused. So they designed great plots for him.”6

Some narrators of this report are:

Masoodi (d. 346): Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 12-13

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 3, Pg. 190

Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari (d. 276)

Document No. 5

“Ali’s refused to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr:

Umar said to him: you are not free unless you give Bay’at.

They pulled him out of the house and took him to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr said: Give the Bay’at:

Ali said: What if I don’t?

They said: By God! We swear, we would cut off your neck.”7

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibn Athim Kufi (d. 314): Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 13-14

Ibn Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Matalib, Pgs. 138-139

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pgs. 11-12

Balazari (d. 279)

Document No. 6

“Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to Ali when the latter refused give allegiance telling him: bring him to me with utmost force.”8

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Murtadha (d. 436): Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 240

Shaykh Toosi (d. 460): Talkhees Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 76

Document No. 7

“Abu Bakr sent some people to Ali to take his Bay’at. But he did not give the Bay’at. Then Umar went to Ali carrying fire.”9

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Murtadha (d. 436): Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 241

Shaykh Toosi (d. 460): Talkhees ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 76

Ibn Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Muhammad bin Jurair bin Yazid Tabari Shafei (d. 310)

Document No. 8

“Ali and Zubair did not give Bay’at. Umar went to them and brought them by force.10

Document No. 9

“Umar bin Khattab came to the house of Ali and said: By God, I will burn (it) over you, or you come out to give Bay’at”.11

Some narrators of these two reports are:

Ibn Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Ibn Abde Rabb (d. 328)

Document No. 10

“Those who did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr were Ali and...Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to pull them out of Fatima’s house. He enjoined Umar to fight them if they refused. Umar came to the house with fire to burn the house together with them.”12

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibn Tawoos (d. 664): Al-Tarayif, Pg. 239

Abul Fida (d. 732): Al-Mukhtasar Fil Akhbaar al-Bashar, Vol. 1, Pg. 156

Ibn Athir (d. 630)

Document No. 11

“And Ali and Bani Hashim refused to give Bay’at… then came to them Umar and took them to give Bay’at.”13

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656) narrates from Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323)

Document No. 12

“Then Umar entered and said to Ali: Get up and do Bay’at.

But he did not pay attention and did not come out from the house. Umar held him by his hand and again said: Get up. Ali again refused to get up. Umar held him by force and threw him. In the same way, he behaved with Zubair too. Then Khalid caught both of them. Umar and his men took them to Abu Bakr in a very bad manner.”14

Document No. 13

“Some Muhajireen were enraged…Ali and Zubair were also angry and they entered Fatima’s house. Umar came to them with his men…Then Umar pulled them out and took them forcibly to give Bay’at.”15

Conclusion

The most prominent conditions under which Bay’at was demanded from Amirul Momineen (‘a) are Ali’s refusal to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr and the atrocious and inhumane behavior of Umar and his men for obtaining the Bay’at. Thus all Sunni sources have highlighted these points.

But the matter is that these two points have put a question mark on the validity of Abu Bakr’s Bay’at due to the following:

• Illegitimacy of the very subject of Bay’at

• The entity of Bay’at-taker was in a position of tyrant and usurper of another’s right.

• Unwillingness of Bay’at-giver

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656) writes:

“Narrations about Saqifah are different and contradictory. But what Shias say and some traditionists have also narrated is as follows:

Ali refused to give Bay’at till it was taken by force.”16

As for Ali’s refusal to Bay’at that resulted in horrible way he was pulled out is mentioned in traditions and biographers have also recorded it.17

As for Jauhari’s saying in this regard, we have already said: Jauhari is a man of tradition. He is trustworthy and of confidence. Many others (trusted and reliable people) have also stated the incident.

Most traditionists have narrated that after the happenings of Saqifah Ali endured great many atrocities as he was taken against his will to enter into Bay’at with Abu Bakr. He shouted in protest. He called for help. He lastly gestured to the Prophet’s grave and said: Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.”18

It is interesting that in spite of historical documents they still claim:

“Whatever happened among Muslims in the early days of Islam, particularly after passing away of Prophet between Ali and companions of Prophet, was friendly and cordial type of dispute.”19

“Differences between companions of Prophet were internal differences but friendly…”20

Further, it is more surprising that when contemporary historians come across these historical documents they claim:

“These narrations are liable to suspicion and to more pondering. Some simple-minded people have launched these things in order to indicate that Imam Ali (‘a) was victimized. On the other hand it is imaginable that Ali perhaps saw himself responsible towards those who were in the house. So he came out and went to Abu Bakr to avoid any danger to them.21”!22

Where did the efforts of Emigrants for taking forced Bay’at from Ali end?

Document No. 1

Ali bin Husayn Masoodi (d. 346) quotes a document about Ali extending his hand to Abu Bakr.

He writes:

“They rushed to his house and attacked it and burned the door. They pulled him out by force.

They crushed the sacred person of Zahra behind the door and she miscarried the unborn child, Mohsin.

They took him (Ali) to give Bay’at but he refused.

They said: We shall kill you.

Ali said: If you kill me you would have killed a God’s servant and His Prophet’s brother.

They pulled his hand. His fist was closed. They tried to open his fist, but they could not.

Then touched Ali’s closed fist over Abu Bakr’s hand.”23

Document No. 2

Sayyid Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Ibrahim Hasani Zaidi (d. 352) quotes a document as follows:

“They told Ali (‘a): Do Bay’at.

Ali said: What if I don’t?

They replied: We shall kill you – and then they pulled his hand.

He closed his fingers tight and raised his head towards the sky, saying: O God! Be a witness!

Then they touched his hand to Abu Bakr’s?”24

Document No. 3

Muhammad bin Masood Ayyashi (d. 320) after narrating the attack on Zahra’s house and pulling out of Ali for Bay’at of Abu Bakr25 and the threats to kill him,26 writes:

“Abbas heard the news and he ran out shouting: Leave my nephew. I will take from him Bay’at for you.

Then Abbas came forward, took Ali’s hand and put it over Abu Bakr’s hand. Then they let Ali (who was enraged) to go.”27

On the basis of this narration, in order to save Amirul Momineen (‘a) Abbas took the hand of His Eminence (‘a) and kept it on the hand of Abu Bakr.

Document No. 4

Allamah Majlisi (d. 1111) narrates similar to that which Tabarsi has mentioned in book Ihtijaaj. 28

“Then he said: Get up! O Ibn Abi Talib and do Bay’at.

(Ali) asked: What if I don’t?

(Umar) said: If so by God, we shall kill you.

He (Ali) protested to them three times. Then he extended his hand while his fist was closed. Over his fist, Abu Bakr hit his hand. This was the Bay’at they could get from Ali but they were content at this much.

Before doing this Bay’at Ali shouted while the rope was round his neck:

Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.” 29

In another document, which is very much similar to the above, the text runs thus:

“…Then he extended his hand without opening the fist. Abu Bakr hit over it by his hand. Abu Bakr was content at that. Then (Ali) went home.” 30

Document No. 5

Sayyid Murtadha (d. 436) writes:

“Adi bin Hatim narrates: I was sitting with Abu Bakr when Ali was brought in.

Abu Bakr told Ali to do Bay’at.

Ali replied: What if I don’t?

Abu Bakr said to him: I will behead you.

Then Ali lifted his head towards sky and said: O God! Be witness! Then he extended his hand and gave Bay’at.”31

Document No. 6

Shaykh Ahmad Tabarsi (6th century) mentions a document as follows:

“Abu Bakr said to Qunfudh: If he (Ali) comes out, it is all right. If not, attack him. Again if he refuses to give allegiance, burn the house with its occupants.

Qunfudh set out with his associates as ordered, attacked the house without warning, entered it and put a black rope around Ali’ neck.

Then they took Ali to Abu Bakr. The black rope was around his neck. Umar was standing with a naked sword. Around Abu Bakr were sitting with his companions holding swords.

Umar threatened him and said: Do Bay’at.

Ali answered: What if I didn’t?

Umar answered: We shall kill you disrespectfully.

Then Ali before doing Bay’at shouted:32 Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.

Then he extended his hand and did Abu Bakr’s Bay’at.”33

Document No. 7

Tabari Imami (4th century) writes:

“A group was sent after Ali. They brought Ali with a rope around his neck.

Then they told him to do Bay’at.

He asked: What if I don’t?

They said: We shall kill you.

Ali said: Then you would have killed a servant of God and a brother of the Prophet.

They said: A servant of God, yes! But a brother of the Prophet, no!

The narrator says: On that day Ali returned without giving Bay’at.”34

How Sunnis narrate this event?

Document No. 8

Ibn Qutaibah (d. 276) writes under the title: Ali’s denial to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr:35

“Afterwards Ali was brought to Abu Bakr. He was saying: I am God’s servant and brother of Prophet of God. He was told: Do Bay’at with Abu Bakr.

Ali said: Rather I deserve to take Bay’at. I won’t do Bay’at with you. It is you that must do Bay’at to me.

Umar said: Unless you do Bay’at, you are not free.

Ali told Umar: By God, O Umar! I do not accept your word and nor would I give Bay’at.

Abu Bakr said to Ali: If you don’t do Bay’at, I will not force you.”

The writer says under the heading: How was the Bay’at of Ali with Abu Bakr:

“They pulled out Ali and took him to Abu Bakr and said to him: Do Bay’at.

Ali asked: What if I don’t?

They said: By God, except Whom there is no god! We shall kill you.

Abu Bakr was silent. He did not utter a word. Then Umar said Abu Bakr: Why don’t you issue any orders to him?

Abu Bakr replied: I don’t order him as long as Fatima is by his side.”36

This historical document has an explanation. Fatima’s house was attacked. It was set afire. Ali was pulled out by force against his will and inclination. He was taken to the mosque and threatened with death. Because of Zahra’s presence in the mosque and her defense of Ali, he returned home without doing Bay’at with Abu Bakr.37 He even pretended to having done Bay’at to be free from the tyranny of the regime.

In other words, according to a historical document, which is from a reliable source, acknowledged38 by Sunni sect, no hand shaking or ceremony of placing hand in the hand of Abu Bakr took place. Because of the presence of Prophet’s daughter in the mosque, he (Ali) was set free.

Conclusion Of The Eight Documents

Paying attention to:

1 – Ayyashi has also mentioned in the beginning of the document that we quoted from him: The presence of Zahra in the mosque and the threat that she will curse the Caliph and his supporters.

2 – Majlisi too before the document we related from him has referred to the above incident. It emphasizes that Ali was freed because of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.).

The text of the document in question reads as under: “Then she took his hand and set out with him.”39

3 – Tabarsi has also referred to this in the document we have mentioned from him.40

So we conclude:

There appears no contradiction between the narration of Ibn Qutaibah and other historical documents. If reconciled with one another it leads us to conclude that:

A) Abu Bakr saw Zahra entering the mosque. So he sufficed on that much military action41 against the Family of Prophet considering it a commitment on the part of Ali to do Bay’at and to not take up arms against the system of Caliphate.

B) The hand of Imam Ali (‘a) reaches the hand of Abu Bakr while Ali’s hand was closed in a fist. It happens at a time when the attack over Zahra’s House was parallel to rushing out of Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet. As such, it is obvious that it took place against the wish and will of Imam Ali (‘a).

C) The Imam Ali’s (‘a) hand reaches the hand of Abu Bakr and Zahra too reaches the mosque. It happens simultaneously. It was a tyranny applied most wickedly on Ali. Then Zahra threatened to curse the Caliph (Abu Bakr) and his supporters.

Therefore, Abu Bakr was content with that much and as a result of curse of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) freed His Eminence, Ali (‘a).

D) Some audiences, particularly supporters of Abu Bakr, have narrated the event in a way that it reflects that Ali did Bay’at willingly without any force or pressure and that he willingly put his hand into the hand of Abu Bakr.

E) Ibn Qutaibah refrains from narrating detailed facts such as attack on Zahra’s house and exercising every possible atrocity and force against Ali to get his Bay’at. There events happened simultaneously with the advent of Zahra to mosque. He wants to exculpate Abu Bakr and pose him as innocent. He relates in such a way as if Abu Bakr waited for the arrival of Zahra to mosque to set Ali free. Further, he shows as if Abu Bakr was not pleased with the deeds of his colleagues.

Remark

In the end we remind:

Some Sunni historians have veiled the conduct of Caliph. They use mild words like:

“Abu Bakr did not want Ali to do Bay’at. He did not force him.42”43!44

Historical documents openly prove the attack, setting fire to the house, calling for firewood, pulling out of Ali and all the things with their minute details.45

Final conclusion about attack on Zahra’s house and efforts for taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (‘a)

Paying attention to:

1 – The strict and strong denial of Ali to do Bay’at is recorded in history and narrated by all historians.

2 – This denial itself is a proof of Ali’s dissatisfaction and invalidity of Caliphate. It rescinds credibility of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

3 – Illegitimacy of Caliphate entails two consequences:

A) Abu Bakr in spite of his incompetence had become a Caliph.

B) The issue of Bay’at is also illegal and out of order.

4 – The pressure at such a level over Imam Ali (‘a), then the atrocities and tyrannies exercised against him themselves prove that the person from whom Bay’at was obtained by trick was not willing to pay it. Had he been willing he would not have had to face this force and threats? All historical documents clearly establish this fact.

On the whole, it can be said:

The story refusal of Ali to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr represents:

That he (Ali) regarded Abu Bakr’s Caliphate illegitimate and invalid.

Therefore Abu Bakr comes in a man incompetent for the office. Neither suitability adjusted, nor competence concurred, nor the eligibility determined the office for him.

On the other hand efforts of his associates of Caliphate in taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen (‘a) by force failed and thus the Bay’at of Abu Bakr had no validity because it fails to fulfill the necessary conditions.

From this aspect, it can be said:

“To prove Bay’at of Abu Bakr is impossible. A show of it or a feigned Bay’at is in vain – inefficacious and of no effect. In obtaining Bay’at, supporters of Abu Bakr applied force, threats and atrocities against Ali. The Bay’at was taken when the conditions were not favorable. As such, the Bay’at loses its validity.

On the basis of this, the only thing that can be proved is that it was a forced Bay’at and hence it was no Bay’at at all.

Final Conclusion

The most important result that comes out of these historical documents is Ali’s displeasure with Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and his denial to it.

Ali’s displeasure can be detected in his efforts to overthrow Abu Bakr’s rule by means of an armed uprising. Further, his continued denial to do Bay’at is also another proof of his unacceptance.

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was always shown by Ali as not rightful.

In the same way by paying close attention to documents and sources that have recorded the attack on Fatima’s house clearly proves that the atmosphere that reigned at the time of demanding Bay’at from His Eminence (‘a) was laced with forceful actions, threats and unwillingness.

So it is impossible to prove completion of Bay’at of Abu Bakr by this.

Therefore it is possible to conclude that:

It is not possible to prove the completion of Bay’at of Abu Bakr and its mere pretension has no effect.

- 1. Details of this can be found in narrations from Shia sources.

- 2. By Bayyat a person submits to another in unequivocal terms so that there should not remain doubt for anyone.

- 3. Most probably the title of his book is Saqifah wa Bayat-e-Abu Bakr, but we could not have access to it.

- 4. Regarding the meaning of the word ‘Khashshaash’ experts say: “It is a piece of wood placed in the nostril of a camel to have greater control on it.” (Ibn Athir: An-Nihaya fee Ghareebul Hadith, Vol. 2, Pg. 33).

- 5. Minqari: Waqatus Siffeen, Pg. 87.

- 6. Ibid. Pg. 120 It is interesting that in the continuation of this letter Muawiyah says that Abu Bakr and Umar did not give Ali any share in their regime neither did they divulge their secrets to him.

- 7. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pgs. 28-29.

- 8. Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 587 (Vol. 2, Pg. 269 Dar al-Fikr).

- 9. Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 567 (Vol. 2, Pg. 268 Dar al-Fikr).

- 10. Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 203.

- 11. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 203.

- 12. Ibn Abde Rabb: Al-Iqdul Fareed, Vol. 4, Pg. 242 (Beirut).

- 13. Ibn Athir: Kamil, Vol. 2, Pg. 325.

- 14. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pgs. 48-49.

- 15. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 50 & Vol. 6, Pg. 47.

- 16. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 21.

- 17. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 59-60.

- 18. Ibid. Vol. 11, Pg. 111.

- 19. Muhammad Jawad Hujjat Kermani: Jam-e-Jam Daily, Issue No. 10, Bahman 1379.

- 20. Ibid. Interview in Nida-e-Islam Magazine, Issue No. 4, Summer 79, Pg. 61.

- 21. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 86.

- 22. This writing was published with the support of Dr. Sayyid Ja’far Shahidi and Dr. Sadiq Ainawand. It is a good analysis yet short of scientific worth. In some way or other it is avoiding acknowledging the ill treatment of Caliphs towards Ali. But the writer openly denies the tyrannical conduct against Imam Ali. On the contrary he paints a picture showing peaceful environment in which Ali’s was invited to give Bayyat. In order to hide similar behavior towards Zahra, he writes thus:
On the other hand the Caliph and his supporters could not behave with Zahra as they did against the opposition and stubbornness of Ali We must ask the writer of this text: whether you accept the inimical conduct of Caliphs towards Ali that now it can be expected from you to acknowledge the tyrannies and atrocities committed towards Zahra?

It were better had the writer benefited from the analysis of Ali’s political stand in the book (Analysis of Political Stance of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a). The unity seekers deny the historical facts such as assault on Zahra’s House and the events that followed.

- 23. Masoodi: Asbat al-Wisaya, Pg. 155.

- 24. Hasani Zaidi: Al-Masabih, manuscript in Great Public library, Sanaa, Yemen, Serial no. 2185; Ibn Hamza Zaidi (died 614) in his book, Ash-Shafi has mentioned this from the book Al-Masabeeh.
Similarly, Husayni Zaidi also mentions this in his book Anwar al-Yaqeen. His source is also Masabeeh. The photocopy of this document is in Markaz-e-Aqaid, Qom. The text is as follows:

“Umar kicked at the door and it broke. It was made of branch and leaves of date palm. Then they entered. He (Umar) tied a rope around the neck of Ali and pulled him out. Then they took him; Umar enjoined Ali to do Bayyat. Ali asked: What if I don’t? Umar: I swear by God, I will cut your throat. Ali said: In that case, you’ll kill a servant of God and brother of Prophet. Umar said: Servant of God – yes. But brother of Prophet, no. He repeated this thrice.”

- 25. Husayni Zaidi: Al-Masabih, copy available in Great Public Library, Sanaa, Yemen, No. 2185; Ibn Hamza Zaidi (died 614) in his book, Ash-Shafi (Vol. 4, Pgs. 171-172) has quoted this from Al-Masabih. In the same way Husayni Zaidi (died 670) in his book, Anwaar al-Yaqeen (Pg. 9) has quoted this from Al-Masabih. The facsimile of this text is present in Markaz-e-Aqaid, Qom.

- 26. The text quoted in his book is as follows: Umar kicked at the door of date branches and broke it open. Then he went inside and brought Ali (‘a) out with rope around his neck.

- 27. Ayyashi Samarqandi: Tafseer Ayyashi, Vol. 2, Pgs. 66-68.

- 28. We shall refer from this quotation in the coming pages also.

- 29. Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 276.

- 30. Ibid. Vol. 28, Pg. 301.

- 31. Sayyid Murtadha: Ash-Shafi fil Imamah, Vol. 3, Pg. 244.

- 32. It means bringing the hand of Abu Bakr to touch the closed fist of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

- 33. Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pgs. 83-84.

- 34. Tabari Imami: Al-Mustarshid, Pg. 380.

- 35. Refusal of Ali from Bayyat of Abu Bakr.

- 36. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pgs. 28-31.

- 37. Ahlul Sunnat cannot deny this statement.

- 38. Refer: Ibn Arabi: Al-Awasim Minal Qawasim, Pg. 248.

- 39. Allamah Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 252.

- 40. Refer: Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pgs. 86-87.

- 41. Details of these conditions can be seen in the books of Ayyashi, Masoodi, Tabarsi and Majlisi.

- 42. Insistence on the version of Ibn Qutaibah instead of the versions of Ayyashi, Masoodi, Tabarsi and others is due to this aim only.

- 43. Regretfully Asghar Qaidan on page 87 has also propagated the same view.

- 44. Refer: Ibn Hazm: Al-Fisal Fil Milal wan Nihal, Vol. 4, Pg. 235.

- 45. Refer: Shaykh Husayn Ghaib Gholami: Ahraaq Bait-e-Fatima (s.a.).

Discourse 3: Lack Of Public Satisfaction From Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

Historical Documents

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli (d. 656) narrates from Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323):

“When the refusal of Ali to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr became a topic of public discussion and Abu Bakr and Umar became harsher on Ali (‘a) Umm Mossattah bin Athatha came out to the grave of the Prophet and recited the following verses:

Unpleasant, dreadful things have occurred;

Had you witnessed, little you would have uttered.

We miss you as the earth is of rain deprived,

See your Ummah in confusion, alas, if you had lived.”1

Amirul Momineen (‘a), in order to prove the lack of people’s approval for Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and their lack of satisfaction from that rule says as follows:

“If you have taken their (people’s) affairs in hand on the basis of consultation, then how it is that the very consultants themselves are absent.”2

The norm of general popularity is that the approval of people should precede the takeover of affairs.

But even though in Saqifah, only a few had accepted.3 the government was announced formally and took on legitimacy. After that others were forced to give Bay’at.

When one is at power, to get Bay’at from people or any particular person becomes easier. The conditions of Bay’at are freedom, liberty and choice. If these elements are absent the Bay’at is worthless. Bay’at must be the right of masses – to accord. Bay’atis not the right of rulership to be obtained from the people by force.

“The fundamental discussions regarding Saqifah are about identification of opponents of Abu Bakr. The most important result of it is that the claim of consensus disappears and loses its worth.

Names of opponents are not recorded in history. Generally, names of reputed personalities are paid attention to. Prominent personalities come to mind. The common ones glide into oblivion. Those personalities have a following to whom opinion of their role models is acceptable.

Some have been mentioned in groups. For instance, in the early stage Bani Hashim refrained from Bay’at.4

In fact, Kinda tribe refused to pay the Zakat. They did so because they opposed Abu Bakr’s becoming Caliph.

So opponents of Abu Bakr’s selection are many in number. A multitude of them cannot be mentioned here.

Most opponents of Abu Bakr later were either killed or bribed or promised future gains, so their number diminished. They later did the required Bay’at. It needs a separate chapter to discuss this.

We could gather the names of following fifty opponents:…”5

After that he has listed these names in alphabetical order.

Another look at Historical Documents about Public Allegiance to Abu Bakr

Document No. 1

In Sahih Bukhari, which is the most reliable source of Sunni sect, it is mentioned from Ayesha that people were threatened to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr.

This document is most important testimony that establishes incredibility and worthlessness of peoples’ Bay’at to Abu Bakr. When Bay’at is wrong and of no worth it overruns peoples’ acceptance or their acknowledgment of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

Ayesha narrated after narrating developments of Saqifah:

“Umar had threatened the people.”6

Document No. 2

On authority of Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323) Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656) narrates: Umar behaved with those who had taken refuge in Fatima’s house as follows:

“Then he said: I swear by God in Whose hands lies my life that I will take you to perform Bay’at. If not, I will burn this house over you. Then he pulled them out by ropes around their necks. He dragged them by force until they gave Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”7

Document No. 3

In the same way he writes about his (Umar’s) roughness and atrocities to strengthen Abu Bakr’s Caliphate:

“It was Umar who established Bay’at of Abu Bakr. He suppressed all those who opposed Bay’at, he broke the sword of Zubair when Zubair pulled it out. He hit at the chest of Miqdad. He, in Saqifah plotted against Saad bin Ubadah and shouted: Kill Saad. May God kill Saad. He defeated Bani Habbab Mundhir. He threatened and pulled out those from Bani Hashim who had taken refuge in Zahra’s House.

And if there was not Umar, Abu Bakr’s rule would have never established.”8

Document No. 4

On this matter, historical sources, proofs and documents are so numerous that Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413) writes:

“The incidents of forcing people to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr and taking them to Abu Bakr against their will and pleasure are so numerous that this book would fall short of pages if we were to mention all of them.”9

Document No. 5

For instance, Shaykh Ahmad Tabarsi (6th century) narrates:

“Umar belted his waist tightly and started roaming the streets of Medina. He was shouting: Beware! Abu Bakr has been acknowledged as Caliph. So hurry up to do Bay’at with him.

People rushed and crowded at and in the mosque to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr.

Umar knew that some remained in their houses to avoid Bay’at. He attacked them by surprise and brought them by force to the mosque to give Bay’at.”10

His support was an armed gang, blacks and nomads from Bani Aslam tribe, who by the admission of Umar himself had a very important role in the success of Saqifah party.

Document No. 6

“Tabari narrates that after their arrival in Medina they gathered in the streets in such large numbers that the streets were jammed and Umar said: When I saw Bani Aslam tribe I became certain of victory.”11

Document No. 7

Ibn Athir has mentioned in the book Kamil:

Bani Aslam tribe arrived and its members did Bay’at. Then Abu Bakr became strong and at that time people gave Bay’at to Abu Bakr.12

Document No. 8

More eloquent than these two is Shaykh Mufeed in the book of Jamal. His quotes from Abu Mikhnaf that: A group of nomad Arabs came to Medina to buy rations. People did not attend to them because on that day the Prophet of God had passed away.

They also did Bay’at with the new Caliph and accepted his rulership. Then Umar called them and said:

Whatever rations you need, will be given to you free provided you go into the lanes and streets of the town, gather the people and take them to Abu Bakr to do Bay’at with him. You are free to break head or nose of anyone who resists.

The narrator says: I saw those rough Arabs all of a sudden tightening their waists and then without any warning they started hitting people with canes and forced them to do Bay’at.13

That is why afterwards many tried to justify these atrocities to exempt them from shame of desert dwelling and being nomads.

Ayesha by way of thanks for their beneficial service to her father fabricated a saying of Prophet in praise of these Arabs. But the falsehood of this tradition can well be understood by the readers.14”15

Document No. 9

In the same way Masoodi says in Athbaat al-Wisaya, page 116:

“Umar paid allegiance to Abu Bakr. That is he did by hitting by his hand over that of Abu Bakr. Then the desert Arabs who were at that time in Medina did Bay’at with Abu Bakr. Then non-Muslims who were in Medina under protection of Muslims enjoining their hospitality and kind treatment and consideration also performed Bay’at to show their gratitude and to please them. They saw themselves indebted to Muslims for their favors. So they thought it was a proper time and befitting opportunity to return their thanks. After them others did Bay’at.”

Document No. 10

Ibn Abil Hadeed (d. 656) has also narrated from Baraa bin Azib that:

“I saw Abu Bakr with Umar and Abu Ubadah and a group of Saqifah associates coming forward. They had tied their waists tight. Whomever they came across, they beat up and forced to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. It did not matter to them whether he liked it or not.”16

Document No. 11

Zubair bin Bukkar in his book Mawafaqiaat has quoted from Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadeed, Vol. 6 Pg. 287 that:

“Abu Bakr became strong with the Bay’at of Bani Aslam. But it is not known when Bani Aslam turned their backs at him.”17

More interesting is that ignoring all these historical testimonies regarding the attitude of Amirul Momineen (‘a) they still claim:

“The reason of this Bay’at was to honor public opinion.”!18

“When the majority of people concentrate on someone else, it becomes necessary to preserve unity in society by Bay’at.”!19

In the end, it is pointed out:

“The thought of selecting a Caliph through general consensus is like searching for causes after something has already happened. It is creation of fanciful elements of history and not a justification applicable to the event that has already occurred. Sunni scholars also do not claim thus. They do not think it is necessary for Imamate.

Sometimes a social phenomena appears or takes to itself existence in a way or other, occasionally the base of monitoring movements is geared by a handful of conjectures. It is justified only for the sake of justification. But the very spirit that brought the phenomena into being is ignored.

Justification of the Caliph’s rule by means of public opinion or its being a government of majority over minority is a formula that obviously serves the ground with regard to Caliphs. The issue of public opinion was never applied, nor ever occurred to them.

In order to decorate Caliphate of Caliphs with an outer show of its being with the people or having had come from the people, some writers have tried to justify it. It exists only in the imaginations of those who justify Caliphs. Reality is something else. It is among those causes that come into being after the happening of a thing.20

Even though it is claimed:

“Imam Ali (‘a) did Bay’at after a period to guard unity among Muslims.”21

- 1. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 50 & Vol. 6, Pg. 43.

- 2. Sayyid Razi: Nahjul Balagha, Saying No. 190.

- 3. Mawardi (died 450) has explained it to be equal to the number of fingers in a hand and he writes: “The Bayyat of Abu Bakr was effected through the unanimity of five persons.” (Mawardi: Al-Ahkaam as-Sulataniyah, Pg. 6).

- 4. Quoted from: Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 208; Ibn Athir: Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 10 & Pg. 14; Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 21.

- 5. Sayyid Hasan Fatimi: Article ‘Saqifah’ quoted in Danish Nama Imam Ali (‘a), Vol. 8, Pg. 443.

- 6. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Pg. 195.

- 7. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 48.

- 8. Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 174.

- 9. Shaykh Mufeed: Al-Jamal, Pgs. 118-119.

- 10. Tabarsi: Ihtijaaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 80.

- 11. Quoted from: Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 459; Qalaqshandi: Nihayatul Arab, Vol. 4, Pg. 35.

- 12. Quoted from: Ibn Athir: Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 331.

- 13. Quoted from: Shaykh Mufeed: Al-Jamal, Pg. 119 We would like to add that this narration is related by many. Some among them are Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya al-Azadi. His source is Muhammad bin Sayyid al-Kalbi and Abu Salih. The green light shown to them by Umar resulted in that the people had no alternative but to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or to be beaten by the Arabs.

- 14. Refer: Ibn Saad: Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 8, Pg. 294.

- 15. Masoodpoor Sayyid Aaqai: Chashma dar Bistar, Pgs. 76-78.

- 16. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 219.

- 17. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah, Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pg. 50.

- 18. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 90.

- 19. Ibid. Pg. 88.

- 20. Ustad Ja’far Subhani: Peshwayi az Nazar-e-Islam (Leadership in the view of Islam), Pgs. 285-286.

- 21. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 1, Pg. 70.

Discourse 4: Efforts To Prove The Bay’at Was Of Free Choice After Zahra’s Martyrdom

A Suspicion

Sunni sources mention that Bay’at with Abu Bakr took place in a free atmosphere with a free choice. Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli (d. 656) has this to say in this aspect:

“This is what a group of narrators say and reputed persons of prominence among them too say. He (Ali) did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr for six months. He remained in his house. He did not do Bay’at until the death of Fatima. When she died he did Bay’at voluntarily.”1

Cause of Zahra’s wrath against Abu Bakr

Readers by now must have become aware of the claim Sunni sources allege that Ali performed Bay’at with Abu Bakr by his own will and wish, after Zahra’s martyrdom!!

As if the only hindrance of his willing Bay’at was remaining alive of the daughter of the Prophet. And if there was delay in this for some months it was only because of this hindrance and there was no other reason!!

Such claims convey that Ali did not see any wrong in doing Bay’at in addition to his having recognized the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. The handicap was the daughter of the Prophet whom he revered and respected.

Therefore as soon as she passed away he hurried over to Abu Bakr and paid allegiance to him!!

It is nothing but a clever ploy to gain legitimacy of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and to cast doubts on the sacredness of the anger of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) on Abu Bakr and make it as insignificant as female emotion.2

Analysis and criticism about allegation that Bay’at with Abu Bakr took place with his (Ali’s) free choice becomes important:

Because Sahih Bukhari3 and Muslim4 mention that it entailed wrath of Zahra against Abu Bakr.

In fact, the text runs thus:

Likes of Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari and Muslim bin Hajjaj Nishapuri have used words like: “So Fatima, daughter of Prophet of God, got enraged at Abu Bakr and left him (deserted). She boycotted him till her death.”5

“and Fatima got angry at Abu Bakr. So she left him and did not talk to him till she died.”6

They have mentioned these points in their books. Indeed, it had been their efforts to invalidate or discredit these narrations. So they took to vague claims such as Bay’at willingly after the martyrdom Zahra.”

They have cast suspicion on anger of God in the person of Zahra – Siddiqa Tahera – on Abu Bakr and her most elevated station.

First the allegation that Bay’at was by Ali’s desire should undergo a thorough scrutiny then alone would it enable us to rely on narrations regarding anger and discontent of Zahra against Abu Bakr. Criticism is necessary to bring out the treasury of history where its gleam and glitter will dazzle and astonish the fact-finding sights and blind the prejudiced eyes.7

On the basis of this to establish the falsehood of claim that Bay’at was of free choice goes parallel to defend Zahra’s anger against Abu Bakr. Exposing this matter will enable one to draw a line between wrong and right after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S) especially regarding the discussion of Imamate and Caliphate.

Motive Of Sunnis In Proving The Occurrence Of This Bay’at?

With reference to suspicion surrounding the correctness of Bay’at of Imam Ali (‘a) with Abu Bakr during the early stage of the usurpation of Ali’s Caliphate, defenders of Caliph have preferred to pave the way for another Bay’at free from all these troubles which the first Bay’at carried. They thought this would be advantageous to wipe out stigmas of shame, which the preceding events brought to them.

To get more familiar with the above refer to following sources:

Ibn Hazm: Al-Fasl Fil Milal Wan Nihal, Vol. 4, Pg. 235

Ibn Athir: Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 10

Abil Fida: Al-Mukhtasar, Vol. 1, Pg. 165

Ibn Jauzi: Tadhkiratul Khawaas, Pgs. 60-61

Ibn Athim Kufi: Al-Futuh, Pg. 8

It is interesting that some have come under the influence of these writings of Sunni Sources and they say:

“Some say that Ali never did Bay’at with Abu Bakr. This is against historical reality. Such sayings are outcome of bigotry which conceals historical facts.”8

And more interesting is that other defenders of School of Caliphate allege that Imam Ali (‘a) did Bay’at in the very early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, and he did it with all his pleasure and willingness.

Some have inserted thoughts, which are their own created lies between the lines of their writings:

Ibn Abde Rabb: Al-Iqd al-Fareed, Vol. 4, Pg. 247

Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 207

Ibn Katheer: Al-Sirah al-Nabawia, Vol. 4, Pg. 495

Nuwairi: Nihayat al-Arab, Vol. 4, Pg. 37

It should be mentioned here that the allegation is in open contrast with all historical documents. Further, it clearly contradicts the view of Sunni scholars, which says that Ali did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr as long as Zahra was alive.9

In How Many Ways Sunnis Narrate This Incident?

These narrations can be divided into three categories:

Type One) Issue of Murtad (apostasy)

Type Two) Issue of the letter of Ali

Type Three) Special meeting of Ali with Abu Bakr

It must be mentioned that some have tried to establish legality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate by means of these very narrations, which to them serve as a foundation. They go on and make claims like:

“After passing away of Prophet, Ali did not enter into Bay’at with Abu Bakr for a period. Then afterwards he agreed and did Bay’at with Abu Bakr.”10

“Ali refrained from Bay’at for a short period. But his high moral and generous nature impelled him to agree to Bay’at.”11

“Ali and a group of elder companions of Prophet refrained from Bay’at with Caliph whom they themselves had selected. But after a period they saw that their refusal to do Bay’at would result in undue repercussions in Islamic world. So later they paid allegiance. Secondly, they saw that one who had occupied the seat of Caliph is a man who would make every possible effort to strengthen Islam. This was the final aim and aspiration of Ali from Caliphate. So he did Bay’at.”!12

Criticism of Three Standards in Narrations of Sunni Sources Concerning willing Bay’at

First Standard: Scrutiny Into Allegation Of Becoming Murtad Of Some Arabs

Balazari (d. 279) writes:

“When the issue of apostasy arose Uthman came to Ali and said:

Cousin, as long as you do not give Bay’at no one will go out to fight these enemies. And he insisted on this so much that Ali came to Abu Bakr with Uthman and pledged allegiance.”

After Ali’s Bay’at to Abu Bakr Muslims became glad. They prepared to fight the Murtads and from every side people went to the battle.”!13

In view of the above document the issue of this Bay’at can be divided into three original pivots, which are as follows:

1 – Apostasy of Arabs and its danger to Islam and Muslims.

2 – The allegation of Uthman that no one was willing to join the campaign to crush the movement as long as Ali refrains from Bay’at.

3 – A vast army set out to crush the apostates as a proof of completion of this Bay’at.

Allegation of Sunni Sect concerning the Bay’at having had taken place because of Murtads cannot be considered reliable

A) Investigation On Reliability Of This Narration

The real pivot of this Bay’at is Arabs becoming Murtad in the time of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Now we must see whether there is any or a little truth in it and to what extent.

Biographies in Sunni historical sources show a vast canvas of ‘Denial of Faith after accepting it’ (which in Arabic is Irtitaad – the noun of the Adjective Murtad) during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. This creates a probability of imminent danger that could change into a terrible attack on Medina.

“Tabari from Saif and he from Sahl bin Yusuf narrates that: the various tribes of Thalaba bin Saad and other tribes who had associated with them under a pact like the tribe of Murra and Abas in a place called Abraq, which was in the territory of Rabaza. Another group from Bani Kinana too had joined this confederation. They became a large multitude, which this location fell short to house them all.

Being short of accommodation, they divided into two groups. One group remained in that same location, Abraq. The second group moved to another location named Zilqissa. Tolaiha Asadi who had claimed himself to be a Prophet sent help and forces to his brother, Jibal, who was the chief there.

Among these tribes, the tribes of Diyil and Laith and Madhij too were present. Auf, son of Falan bin Sanin, administered the Marra tribe in Abraq. The leadership of the tribe of Thalaba and Abas was responsibility of Harith bin Falan. Harith was one of the folk of the tribe of Bani Saba.

So their number went on increasing and their multitude widened.

These tribes delegated a number of their men to Medina as their representative. The representative of the Murtad groups that returned from Medina reported to their respective tribes the weakness and paucity of men in Medina. What they had witnessed in Medina they reported to their chiefs concerned. The weakness among Muslims, the little number of Muslims created greed in the minds of the chiefs of the various tribes gathered in Abraq. Their strength and extraordinary manpower encouraged them to attack Muslims and they got ready for it.

After three days, a large number Murtads started the most calculated attack on Medina by night.”!14

These events are related as a preliminary ground for the battle of Abraq. This is the first battle of Murtad by the soldiers of Abu Bakr. Historians have stated these events in various versions but the point of apostasy is same. The danger inherent in it is reflected in the narration of Balazari.

In the course of Tabari’s narration of these developments and events, we come across preliminary events that preceded the Abraq battle. We give hereunder extract from Tabari:

“Abu Bakr got the intelligence of the attack designed by Murtads. He appointed Ali, Talha, Zubair and Ibn Masood at the entrance points of Medina.”15

In view of this allegation the Bay’at (of Ali) was concluded in those early days, that is when the Murtads delegated their representatives to Medina and Abu Bakr became aware of their plan.

Therefore Abu Bakr was able to provide the people of Medina with necessary elements of defense. According to the claims he (Abu Bakr) made Ali the commander of the army stationed at the entrance point to Medina.

There is a close link between the narration of Balazari about Bay’at and credibility of events related to the battle of Abraq. This link enhances credibility of Balazari and makes the events believable.

In spite of this, the events are surrounded by surmise and suspicion.

Investigation Of Correctness And Occurrence Of The Battle Of Abraq And Events Following It

Allamah Al-Askari in Volume Two of Abdullah bin Saba and other historical stories has dwelled much on the analysis of battles and victories during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. In his analysis he has exposed the fabrications and lies of Saif bin Umar.

Regarding the reliability of report about Abraq battle and events ensued therefrom, which we have mentioned, he writes:

“Through serious research it should be said with certainty:

Things narrated with so many details about Abraq battle and story of Zilqissa16 – all are fabricated and created by Saif. No historian except Saif has narrated them. So it is nothing but a lie and imagination of Saif.

Neither is true apostasy of most of these tribes whom Saif has accused of being Murtads. There was no gathering of Murtad in Abraq and Zilqissa. There is no basis of sending representatives of Murtad to Medina. Likewise, the choice of Abu Bakr has no base. There is no truth in it. Again, he posted soldiers at entry points of Medina. He sent army to fight them. All this is again wrong. Nothing of it is correct. The four battles17which Saif has attributed to Abu Bakr are also without ground.”18

The following extracts from Rijaal books sufficiently prove that Saif bin Umar was a liar

“1 – Yahya bin Moin (d. 233) says about him:

His sayings are weak and feeble.

2 – Nasai, author of Sahih (d. 303) says:

Many have avoided him. They do not quote from him because of his not being honest or reliable.

3 – Abu Dawood (d. 275) says:

He is worthless. A great liar!

4 – Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327) says:

They have ignored his narrations.

5 – Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353)

He is weak.

6 – Ibn Hibban (d. 354)

He used to invent traditions and narrate them attributing to some reliable source. He is accused of being an atheist. Saif is accused of creating false traditions.

7 – Darqutni (d. 385) says:

He is weak. His narrations are avoided.

8 – Hakim (d. 405) says:

His traditions are avoided because he is said to be an atheist.

9 – Firozabadi (d. 817) complier of Qamoos says:

He is weak.

10 – Ibn Hajar (d. 825) says:

He is weak.

11 – Suyuti (d. 911) says:

He is very weak.

12 – Safiuddin (d. 923) says:

He is considered weak.”19

Result

Most narrations regarding Bay’at quoted by Sunni writers are from Saif. Similar is the issue of Murtad and battle of Abraq. Hence it loses credit and does not carry any historical credibility.

B) Analysis Of Proof Of This Narration

The issue of Bay’at is related to the issue of Murtad and battle of Abraq. Its correctness too is related to the above.

In Sunni books, like Tarikh Tabari, the issue of Murtad and story of attack of Medina by Murtads commences from the battle of Abraq and ends at Umm Zamal becoming a Murtad.

Continuation of scrutiny about authenticity of Abraq battle and events following it

According to Sunni sources, Murtads after their defeat in Abraq battle invited the Tai tribes to co-operate with them and another battle took place in Zilqissa at Buzakha. They confronted eleven divisions of Abu Bakr’s army but were again defeated.

These people who were defeated for the second time gathered around a woman who had become Murtad. Her name was Umm Zamal. Again they posed danger to Islam. This movement too was crushed by forces of Caliph.20

On the basis of this authenticity of Bay’at, narrator of which is Balazari, is related to authenticity of the four battles:

1 – Battle of Abraq.

2 – Campaign at Zilqissa and battle at Buzakha.

3 – Apostasy of Tai tribe.

4 – Apostasy of Umm Zamal.

The interesting point is that some researchers consider all narrations relating to above events as fabricated. They give credibility only to developments that occurred at Zilqissa – and that too not totally. We quote some texts:

“Usamah along with his army returned to Medina from the battle of Syria. It was the time Abu Bakr was preparing for confrontation with Murtad. With a group of Muslims he left Medina and reached Zilqissa, which is twelve miles from Medina on route to Najd. He camped here and his army also remained alert.

Khalid bin Waleed was sent to Murtad tribes. Abu Bakr vested the command Ansaar to Thabit bin Qays and made Khalid commander-in-chief. Abu Bakr ordered Khalid to move towards Tolaiha and Oyinat bin Hisn who were stationed in the vicinity of Bani Asad tribe at a place called Buzakha.

In the meantime, Abu Bakr told Khalid: Good will shortly ensue from this meeting of yours with my army at Khaiber. Of course Abu Bakr’s words were based on policy and were a trick. His idea was that the enemy would come to know; and this would create a dread in their hearts. It is concluded thus because Abu Bakr had already sent all his warriors with Khalid towards the enemy. There remained no one with Abu Bakr to be sent to the support of Khalid either to Buzakha or Khaiber.21

Yaqubi too has mentioned in his history the incident in which Abu Bakr moved towards Zilqissa and appointment of Khalid as Commander. Yaqubi adds that the appointment of Thabit as leader of Ansaar was after Ansaar objected to Abu Bakr why he did not appoint anyone of them as the commander.”22

“When we compare the narrations of Saif regarding Abraq battle and story of Zilqissa with narrations of other historians it obviously shows the imaginative mind of Saif. Because all other historians are unanimous in saying that Abu Bakr left Medina for battle only once. After the return of Usamah from Muta23 he moved towards Zilqissa. There he provided a well-ordered army and vested Khalid with command of this army. He made Thabit chief of Ansaar under supervision of Khalid. Then Abu Bakr ordered them to move towards Buzakha to crush Tolaiha and those from tribes of Asad and Fuzara who had gathered around him.”24

“Other historians write regarding this that from groups living on outskirts of Medina only two tribes rose against Islam. One was Asad, the tribe of Tolaiha himself and the other was Fuzara a branch of Ghatfan and Ghatfan itself was a sub tribe of Qays Eylan. Except these two, no other tribe is seen aiding Tolaiha or fighting against Muslims.”25

“In the army of Tolaiha there were a few persons from Asad tribe, which was his own tribe and a few other from Fuzara tribe under the supervision of their chief Uyanna bin Hisn.”26

“Some historians again write that soldiers of Tolaiha assembled in Buzakha a populated place of Asad tribe. Khalid bin Waleed came from Zilqissa with two thousand seven hundred men from Fuzara and confronted them. A severe battle took place between them.”27

More interesting is the point that the issue of Bay’at of free choice is related to the issue of apostasy of Tai tribe while the fact is that:

“Tai is the same tribe, which was not Tolaiha’s supporter, but they took the stand against – Tolaiha. Whenever an army confronted Tolaiha, they too joined them against Tolaiha. They used to say: Abu Bakr must fight you so hard that you will name him Abul Fahal. Besides, he (Khalid) sought help from them in the battle against Tolaiha.”28

For the first time issue of Murtad was shown as a great danger:

1 – Usamah’s army had returned from Muta so Abu Bakr had no shortage from military aspect.

Therefore there was no need for him to demand Ali’s allegiance in order to call for volunteers.

2 – Tolaiha and his associates were not in considerable number and the issue of apostasy was not so widespread that it needed a huge army to be crushed.

As a matter of fact, the issue of Murtads was not a serious danger to threaten a town like Medina that it should have required demanding Ali to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr.

Result

The issue of Bay’at of free will of Imam Ali (‘a) for the sake of crushing the revolt of Murtads is a thing added to historical documents. The propaganda disseminated on the wings of falsehood was so high that the issue of Murtads gained a ground.

Another Look At The Case Of Apostasy Of Arabs

The researchers have acknowledged the Murtad Arabs were few in number. In his research into the history of battles against Murtad, Allamah Al-Askari has concluded that it was not such a serious matter.

The issue of apostasy was such that researchers have very simply passed by without pursuing it like Allamah Al-Askari.29 So the lies written by Tabari in this respect remained unchallenged. But when historical records and documents mentioned in Sunni books are scrutinized it proves that:

“The vastness of Arabian Peninsula caused the historians to believe that apostasy was also so widespread. While the limited number of inhabitants who accepted Islam during Prophet’s lifetime remained adherents of Islam.”30

“Most historians have exaggerated the matter. They imagined the length and breadth of Arabian Peninsula and fancied that the issue of Murtads31 was also as widespread. So they wrote: The Arabs became Murtads – a superlative expression reflecting a wrong idea that all the population apostised while in fact it was not so. They exempted three towns: Medina, Mecca and Taif from being Murtad. But research shows a different picture. Many tribes were loyal to Islam and government at Medina. If was quite likely they even helped the central government in crushing Murtads.

Through historical testimonies and sources we shall prove that most of these tribes and people adhered to their faith in Islam and the exaggeration in this issue is uncalled for…

There are many reports that indicate people’s loyalty to Islam and their scorn of apostasy. A few instances are as under:

1 – Most historians are unanimous that there was no apostasy in Mecca, Medina and Thaqif and they even came out to help in crushing the apostates of Asad, Zibyan and Ghatfan.32

2. Loyalty of tribes living between Mecca, Medina and Taif like Muzina, Ghiffar, Johaina, Balla and…to Islam.33

After the Prophet’s passing away some of these tribes paid Zakat to Abu Bakr. The Caliph sought their help in his coming battle of Ridda.34

There are indications that some individuals of Amir and Hawazin also remained loyal to Islam. As mentioned in the report of Fujaat that Amir and Hawazin used to support all the Muslims of Sulaym tribe.35

A group among the tribe of Bani Kalb under leadership of Imrul Qays bin al-Asbagh and similarly a group from Bani al-Qain under leadership of Umar bin al-Hakam who was an agent of the Prophet, remained Muslims until the last.36

Besides these there are many in Yemen such as Nakha, Jofi, Murad and Madhij who separated themselves from Aswad Ansi and protected themselves from apostasy…

A large number of tribes from Bani Tameem also remained Muslims and they remained firm against the claim of prophethood of Sajjah. On the basis of this it can be said that among the Bani Tameem the number of those who remained Muslims was more than those who had doubts about Islam or those who had apostised.

Maqdasi has absolved many from Nakha’a and Kinda from being Murtads in addition to Bahrain, Mecca and Medina.37

The fact is that to give such vastness to the issue of apostasy is a mistake. So the right thing is that some claimants of prophethood and their followers and some others who attacked the central government of Medina may be called apostates. Even the claimants of prophethood cannot be called apostates because they had not accepted Islam in the first place that they could turn away from it.

Perhaps the fact that apostates were scattered in a large area caused the historians to believe that they were in such a large number.

In Tarikh Ridda while listing apostate tribes the following are absolved from being Murtads: Abas, some from Ashja, Ghiffar, Juhaina, Muzina, Kaab, Thaqif, Tai, Huzail, people of Sarrah, Bajila, Khathama, Hawazin, Nasr, Jusham, Saad bin Bakr, Abdul Qays, Doos, Shajeeb, Hamadan and Anba in Sanaa.38

…the result is that the issue of apostasy was not so widespread in Arabian Peninsula as historians have made it out to be and most of them remained Muslims and were loyal to Islam.”39

Conclusion

As you saw the magnitude of apostasy described by Waqidi and Tabari is not having any truth as shown in analysis of Allamah Al-Askari. But researchers have not followed the line of Allamah Al-Askari and thus apostasy remains in the same exaggerated condition.

On the basis of this from every angle you look at the issue of apostasy you will conclude that:

The apostasy of Arabs was neither so widespread nor such a serious danger to Islam.

Therefore its suppression has no connection with the Bay’at of Imam Ali (‘a) to Abu Bakr.40

Three main outcomes of scrutiny of the issue of Apostasy of Arabs

Conclusion 1 – The scrutiny can be summed up in one sentence: The issue of apostasy of Arabs was a fabricated case. Bay’at of Imam Ali (‘a) had no bearing on it as Sunnis claim.

Conclusion 2 – Even if for the sake of argument we even accept the issue of apostasy of Arabs in the magnitude as is claimed, yet we do not see any Bay’at taking place. In narration of Balazari the words (so he gave Bay’at) are fabricated and a presumption of narrator himself.

Conclusion 3 – Even if for the sake of argument we accept the narration of Balazari it does not exercise any influence on historical realities as the Bay’at itself was a forced one. It was only a show.

In other words, the Bay’at which occurred as a show was basically invalid.

On the margins of analysis of issue of apostasy of Arabs

If for the sake of argument we suppose that the matter of Bay’at is correct we must pursue the concealed motives and aims of Caliphate about the Bay’at and make a fresh analysis of circumstances surrounding its occurrence.41

Because in this issue there is likelihood of preparation of background to a psychological war in Medina as Uthman’s meetings with Ali shows.

This idea arises because the name of Tai has crept in the case of Tolaiha and battle of Buzakha while according to historical records they were not apostates but among supporters of Abu Bakr.42

Therefore there is probability that from the very base, the matter narrated by Tabari on the authority of Saif43 –was not a lie but the tribe of Tai demonstrated Irtitaad to the benefit and advantage of Abu Bakr. It can be said to be a pre-prepared game with mutual understanding. An emergency atmosphere is created in Medina. And they send representatives to put awe in the people which evidently served to benefit the Caliph.

Therefore it can be said:

Upon the martyrdom of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) all the attention of the system of Caliphate concentrated in subduing the opponents living outside Medina.44

In the meantime, that which was a source of anxiety to the Caliph was effort of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to overthrow his regime. That also at a time when he wanted to send all available troops out of Medina and his own departure from Medina to Zilqissa.

Therefore they had to find a way that this time they had to without any ceremony and show off and also without any display of threats and enmity take assurance from Amirul Momineen (‘a) that he will assume silence and abstain from an armed uprising.

In these circumstances they initiated a systematic propaganda.

So first of all they spread the terror of attack of apostates on Medina.

Then Uthman pressurized Ali to give Bay’at so that the regime can mobilize people for suppressing the apostates and that there was no other way to defend Islam and Muslim.

Because of this propaganda it seemed that if Ali still refused allegiance it would at least tarnish his character in the view of people and put a question mark on his rightfulness.

From this aspect Bay’at to the Caliphs was under the pressure of public opinion and widespread propaganda of government machinery against His Eminence (‘a).

In the analysis of this issue Allamah Al-Askari writes:

“The correct Bay’at is that which must be given at pleasure and with willingness, otherwise it is not Bay’at. It is only a handshake, or at the most a show of Bay’at.

So Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (‘a) after six months took place under pressure and for preservation of Islam. So in fact, it was a Bay’at without any willingness and just a show and a handshake.”45

[1]

[2]

(536)

Last Reminder

More interesting is the point that some narrations regarding the issue of apostasy do not mention anything about the occurrence of Bay’at of Ali, they only repeat the matter of silence.

These documents clearly prove that the phrase ‘so he did Bay’at’ in the narration of Balazari is an interpolation by the narrator and there is no truth in it.

Tabari Imami (4th century) narrates from Waqidi (d. 207):

“When Arabs turned Murtad, Uthman came to Ali and said: O, cousin of Prophet! As long as you do not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr, no one goes to fight the enemy. You yourself are better aware of things. Your viewpoint is correct. But I fear this present issue could develop into a great trouble and might bring havoc to all of us.

Uthman kept on insisting on Ali and his pleadings bore fruit. Finally he brought Ali to Abu Bakr.

Muslims became happy with this development. From every side the horse riders came out. People became desirous to fight. They got ready for the battle.

His attitude that he will neither undertake a movement not an armed uprising alone acted as a deterrent. Because swords of mischief were pulled out and flames of havoc were leaping high. The lances were directed against Islam and Muslims. So he gave up demand of restoration of his rights.46”47

Second standard: Scrutiny into narrations regarding the letter of Ali

Another document used to prove willing Bay’at is Imam’s letter to his companions. On the basis of it they claim:

“Ali refrained from Bay’at for a certain period. The hypocrites started their activities. Then the issue of Murtad arose. These two issues posed an eminent danger to Islam and Muslims. Therefore for sake of Islam Ali did Bay’at with Abu Bakr at his free will.”!48

A) A look at this letter

1 – The letter in Al-Imamah was-Siyasah is as follows:

“I withheld my hand even though I considered no one more deserving than myself for the successorship of Prophet. So I remained patient on destiny till I saw a group departing from Islam calling others to give up the religion of Muhammad and Ibrahim.

So I feared that if I do not help Islam and Muslims the havoc will be far greater than that of giving up succession to the Prophet. So I went to Abu Bakr and did Bay’at.”!49

2 – In Ansaab al-Ashraaf the letter is referred to without its contents.50

3 – In Al-Gharaat the contents of this letter are:

“I withheld my hand even though I considered no one more deserving than myself for the successorship of Prophet. So I remained patient on destiny till I saw a group departing from Islam calling others to give up the religion of Muhammad and Ibrahim.

So I feared that if I do not help Islam and Muslims the havoc will be far greater than that of giving up succession to the Prophet. So I went to Abu Bakr and did Bay’at.”!51

A – 1) Remark about Al-Gharaat

Although the writer of this book is Ibrahim bin Muhammad Thaqafi Kufi (d. 283) an Imamiyah scholar but the first copy of Al-Gharaat has come down to us only through a Sunni channel so we treat it as a Sunni source.

A – 2) Common points in Narrations of Ibn Qutaibah and Thaqafi

A close attention to the above will bring to light two basic pivots common in both.

Pivot A

People going Murtad in the period of occurrence of this Bay’at as proved from the words: ‘I saw people returning from Islam’.

Pivot B

Going of Imam Ali (‘a) to Abu Bakr and doing Bay’at with him as mentioned in the words: ‘Then I went to Abu Bakr and did Bay’at’.

B) A glance at the incident mentioned in this letter

1 – Ibn Qutaibah writes about the reason of writing this letter:

“Hujr bin Adi, Amr bin Hamaq and Abdullah bin Wahab Rasibi visited Ali to inquire Imam’s opinion about Abu Bakr and Umar…”52

2 – Balazari writes:

“Hujr bin Adi Kindi, Amr bin Hamaq Khuzai, Habba bin Juwin Bajili Urani, Abdullah bin Wahab Hamadani and Ou bin Saba came to Ali…”53

3 – Thaqafi Kufi writes:

“Amr bin Hamaq, Hujr bin Adi, Habba Urani, Harith Awar and Abdullah bin Saba visited Ali…”54

B – 1) Outcome

As you must have noted in the documents of this letter appear some personalities such as Abdullah Ibn Wahab Rasabi Hamadani Sabayee. Balazari calls him Ibn Saba. Thaqafi calls him Abdullah bin Saba as one of the questioners, which is a point worth contemplation.55

Abdullah bin Wahab Rasabi Hamadani was among the Khawarij and was the commander of Khawarij in the battle Nahrawan.

Shia and Sunni, both sects, regard Abdullah bin Saba as a perverted and deviated person. According to research of Allamah Al-Askari, he (Abdullah) is a creation of Saif bin Umar and was a design to distort historical facts.

On the other hand Tabari Imami, the elder,56 (4th century) has mentioned this letter in his book, Al Mustarshid Fil Imamah57 from Shoba (Amir bin Saraheel Abu Umar Kufi) who is only considered reliable by Sunni sect and the Shias have opposed him.58

C) Investigation of credibility of sources mentioned in this letter

As you must have noted the text of this letter is mentioned in two ancient sources: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari and Al-Gharaat by Thaqafi Kufi.

Since only Thaqafi Kufi was of Shia faith and Ibn Qutaibah was a follower of the School of Caliphate his quotation in this particular case cannot be trusted.

In the coming pages you will see that Ibn Qutaibah is very much inclined to represent Ali firstly, in good terms with Abu Bakr; and secondly to do Bay’at with him on his own willingness and desire.

Therefore Ibn Qutaibah in quoting the matter about the willing Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (‘a) to Abu Bakr blames the associates of the Caliph and therefore assumes an external position; so in this pursuit he has dared to confirm fabricated documents in which the signs of fabrication and deviation are very much prominent.59

Therefore there is likelihood that the letter might have been distorted by Ibn Qutaibah and since he has quoted it regarding willing Bay’at it becomes unreliable.

As for Al-Gharaat the most genuine and reputed source of this letter it must be said:

1 – This book Al-Gharaat has reached to us through Sunni sources only.60

2 – The writer of Al-Gharaat has written it in Isfahan. In those times in Isfahan lived stanch anti-Shia people. Most were opposed to Imam Ali (‘a).61

Muhaddith Armavi in preface to this Al-Gharaat gives the reason why Thaqafi lived in Isfahan. According to him:

“…Thaqafi was originally from Kufa, later he migrated to Isfahan because in Kufa he had written a book on the virtues of the Purified Ahlul Bayt (‘a) and the defects of their enemies which the people of Kufa admired and appreciated very much. But they advised him not to publish it as it was time to be in dissimulation. Thaqafi asked them of a place where Shias were less or it is far from Shias. They told him such a town was Isfahan. So Ibrahim swore that he would not publish the book but in Isfahan.

So he migrated from Kufa to Isfahan and published the book which was against dissimulation there.”62

Hence there is very strong likelihood that the copy makers of Isfahan who were of the Sunni School mixed and interpolated the material of the book with their own prejudice against Ahlul Bayt of Prophet.

C 1) Evidences That Show Deviation In Al-Gharaat

Evidence 1 – In the printed copy of Al-Gharaat we read the instructions of ablution in line with Sunni sect. the instructions direct to wash the fact instead of passing of palm over them. This is Sunni practice which contradicts Shia method.63

Such interpolation is also found in the letter of Imam Ali (‘a) addressed to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr in Egypt.

The Signs Of Interpolation In Evidence 1

Shaykh Mufeed has copied this letter in Amali. He has taken it from Al-Gharaat. Some among its contents are like this:

“Then pass your palm over your head and feet.”64

The interesting thing is that Ibn Al-Hadeed Motazalli has also not mentioned it in Sharh Nahjul Balagha.65

Therefore it can be said:

This interpolation was done by those who duplicated Al-Gharaat. It served their purpose to insert their belief within the words of Imam Ali (‘a).

Muhaddith Armavi has mentioned in the footnote in Al-Gharaat quoting from Muhaddith Noori:

“It is clearly known that contents of Al-Gharaat have been distorted by Sunnis; because they narrate from it.”66

Evidence 2 – The printed copy of Al-Gharaat contains many virtues and superior qualities of Caliphs. While the irrefutable fact is that all qualities attributed to Caliphs are false on the basis of the attitude of Imam Ali (‘a) in the six-persons Shura committee formed to appoint a Caliph. Abdur Rahman bin Auf laid a condition that the new Caliph must follow the path of Abu Bakr and Umar. The reply of Ali was so severe and harsh67 that it leaves no room to doubt that the text concerning Caliphs is nothing but a fabrication.

The fabrication that has taken place concerns two letters of Imam Ali (‘a). One was addressed to Qays bin Saad bin Ubadah in Egypt and the other to his (Ali’s) own companions.

Signs Of Forgery In Evidence 2 (Including 2 Letters)

Evidence 2 – Letter One

The text of this letter68 is as follows in Al-Gharaat:

“After the Prophet Muslims chose from among themselves two virtuous men as their Caliphs and leaders who acted on the book of God and administered the affairs in the best possible way. They did not go beyond the tradition of Prophet. Then God captured their souls. May God have mercy on them.”!69

In this concern, Allamah Mirza Habeebullah Hashimi Khoei writes in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha:

“They could have been such as a show off to the people. Although it is also possible that these interpolations were made by the opponents of Shias and inserted into the text.”70

That which proves the veracity of Allamah Hashimi Khoei is that:

What has come in the statements of Amirul Momineen (‘a) is actually the people’s view about the two Caliphs. There is another letter of Ali addressed to Huzaifa bin Yaman in the town of Madayn. The letter reads as follows:71

“After passing away of Prophet some Muslims raised two men to Caliphate. They were pleased with the behavior and the conduct of those two.”72

The difference in the words of Ali is another proof of deviation in the text. The difference in the wording is clear comparing the printed copy of Al-Gharaat with the narration of Sayyid Ali Khan Madani.

He (Sayyid Ali Khan Madani) has copied the letter in his book Al-Darjaat ar-Rafiya from Al-Gharaat. The text concerning Caliphs runs as follows:

“After the Prophet, Muslims brought among themselves two men into succession as their chiefs who acted in the best way till their death.”73

The difference in the text with that of the printed copy of Al-Gharaat shows that Al-Gharaat gradually underwent deviations by several hands. There does not exist any copy which may tally with another. However little or trifle, but there is a deviation in each. One differs from another. This is an open proof of it not being original.

Evidence 2 – Letter Two

This letter in Al-Gharaat74 reads thus:

“Umar took over the charge of affairs. He administered the things in the best way. He had a blessed soul.”75

Muhaddith Armavi writes in footnote of the text of this letter from Allamah Muhammad Baqir:

“It seems it was such in the eyes of the people. He has mentioned about Abu Bakr in the same manner. Of course dissimulation too is obvious in the speech. It is also quite likely that deviation should have taken place by opponents.”

Allamah Majlisi too writes that the contents of the letter reflect the view of the people about the Second Caliph. It is not that of Imam Ali (‘a) himself. If cannot be. There is narration regarding the letter, which we refer to.

Tabari Imami, the elder (4th century) is among those who have mentioned the contents of the second letter. In his book Al-Mustarshid fil Imamah the contents pertaining to the Second Caliph are:

“And he (Umar) was among the people of good character and a blessed soul.”76

Difference in the text with that of Al-Gharaat indicates deviation and shows hand-to-hand circulation of the copy.

C – 2) Results Of The Investigation Of Above Evidences

As such, the copy of Al-Gharaat is short of credibility as that of Imamate and Siyasat regarding the Bay’at at a free will.

D) A Look Towards Inadvertency Of Balazari To The Contents Of The Letter Of Ali

Once again, if we divert our attention to the reasons common between narrations of this letter (Point A-2) and place it by the side of Balazari’s narration we will find that the narration of Balazari is in line with the contents of Imam Ali’s (‘a) letter telling the same thing.

In the contents of the letter inserted in the book Al-Mustarshid, difference is recorded. This makes complete the application of the letter with the narration of Balazari. The text in the book Al-Mustarshid reads thus:

“And I saw people not moving against them (the enemies of God) because of my isolation and non-participation.”77

With reference to the above points following questions arise:

1) Balazari himself is one of the narrators of Arabs turning Murtads and the Bay’at of Imam Ali (‘a) with Abu Bakr at his free will. He has refrained from mentioning the contents of the letter. He only mentions the primary ground that cause the writing of the letter. Why?78

2) What justification could be there for Balazari for ignoring to mention the text of this letter?

3) The copy of the letter which was in possession of Balazari whether it did not indicate occurrence of such a Bay’at? All present copies of the letter mention that a Bay’at of Ali with Abu Bakr did take place at his own choice and willingness. This is quite in line with the religious inclinations of Balazari and his taste of writing history.

Reply

The answer of these questions can be found in the narration of Muhammad bin Jurair bin Rustom Tabari (4th century). In his narration, there is no mention of Bay’at. So such a letter does not meet any of the aims of Balazari.

The text of the letter according to Al-Mustarshid is as follows:

“I withheld my hand though I saw myself more deserving for the place of Muhammad among the people as one who denies his self.

So I endured what God had desired. Then I saw among the people their return from Islam openly. They invited the people to give up God’s religion and change the Ummah of Muhammad.

So I feared that if I do not support Islam and sit idle I will have to see ruin and destruction therein. Its havoc upon me will be greater than losing Caliphate.

And I saw people not inclined to fight the enemy of God because of my isolation and lack of participation.

So I went to Abu Bakr and co-operated with him. Had I not done this, Islam would have been destroyed.”79

Reminder

The words of Imam Ali (‘a): Had I not done this, Islam would have been destroyed convey the meaning of ceasefire and that is all.

Three Prime Results Of Scrutiny Of Ali’s Letter

Result 1

The false story of Arabs going Murtad, which Tabari has created and publicized to make it doubtless, is used as a tool to draw benefit from this letter. With the help of this letter, deviations are made according to their desire. Misunderstandings and advantages are drawn to support the claims of Sunnis.

It is important to note that we should not necessarily go to the Arabs Murtad when the subject matter happens to be any Murtad. Muhaddith Armavi writes in the footnote of Al-Gharaat in explanation of ‘Return of the people’ on the authority of Allamah Majlisi:

“It is likely that he should have meant the hypocrites who had gathered around Abu Bakr and were always seeking an opportunity to create mischief or an element to provide them with an excuse to become Murtad.”80

This idea is supported by Imam Ali’s (‘a) wordings. He refers to the time after the incident of Saqifah and the early Caliphate. A little attention is enough to reach to the said conclusion. Hypocrites are meant here not Murtads. It corresponds to the time when Ali had not isolated himself. He was after an armed uprising to take his usurped right.

It was exactly when Ali sensed the danger of people turning their back upon Islam. He felt the danger of Islam’s annihilation. It is the same meaning in which Allamah Majlisi has said that the Imam assumed silence. And the words: “I saw ruin and destruction of Islam more terrible than losing authority over your affairs.”

Therefore:

So the Bay’at which is the theme of this letter on the ground of Arabs Murtad is fabricated.

Sunni historians have a very strong inclination to pose the Bay’at of free choice as linked to the issue of Murtad which is false and lacking veracity and this has led to interpolation in the letter to their advantage.

The alterations were as follows:

Supposition A) The words: “So I went to Abu Bakr and did Bay’at with him” are added in the original letter to so that it will support the false narrations of Ahlul Sunnat in this matter.

Supposition B) The words: “I saw that as I had not given Bay’at people refrained from campaign, so I went to Abu Bakr” are added to the original letter so that people may began to think on the lines of a Bay’at done willingly and accept the claims of historians like Balazari.

These additions in the contents can give three dimensions to the sense of “I co-operated with him.” This phrase exists in the narration of Tabari Imami in a sense of ‘ceasefire’. It was later changed to Bay’at. There are several possibilities in it.

The ups and downs of the letter do not carry any reference to incidents of Arabs becoming Murtad or Bay’at at free choice which is the subject of Sunni claim. It seems to be of the early days of usurpation of Caliphate from Ali. In those days, Ali went into isolation. Those days were very hard and difficult for Ali.

Result 2

Supposing this letter was at the time of Murtad issue, the phrase: “I did Bay’at” is conjecture of the narrator81 or it was added later.

Result 3

If we suppose the correctness of the whole text of this letter and the correctness of the phrase: “So I gave Bay’at to him”, the phrase of “So I feared that if I do not help Islam…” which is common82 in all narrations, will makes it ‘a Bay’at for show, which is invalid’; still they claim:

“His Eminence (‘a) did Bay’at at his free will.”83

On The Margin Of Scrutiny Of The Letter Of Amirul Momineen (‘a)

If we treat this letter in accordance with the narration of Balazari, the analysis previously done becomes applicable here too. As a result:

The Bay’at mentioned in this letter is of show without reality. It is nothing more than a handshake, so it is devoid of any effect or reliability.84

In fact with reference to this letter the event that ensued should be named as “Show of Bay’at which is basically invalid”.

Third standard: Scrutiny of Narrations about the secret meeting of Ali with Abu Bakr

Narration No. 1

“It is mentioned in Tarikh Tabari85 that a man told Zuhri: Is it not that Ali did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr until six months? Zuhri said: Not only Ali, but no one among Bani Hashim did Bay’at until Ali did. Because when Ali saw that people were not inclined to have him as their Caliph he was compelled to compromise with Abu Bakr. Therefore he sent a messenger to Abu Bakr and invited him to come for talks, but alone. Ali did not like Umar to accompany him. He knew the roughness of Umar and the extent of his impoliteness. Umar told Abu Bakr not to go alone but Abu Bakr replied: No, by God, I’ll go alone to him. What do you think they will do? Abu Bakr visited Ali all alone. He saw all the members of Bani Hashim were around Ali. Ali got up; received Abu Bakr. First, he (Ali) thanked and praised god. Then said: O, Abu Bakr! Your virtues we do not deny, nor does it stand on way to do Bay’at with you. I do not envy with what God has directed to your side. But in our view in this affair we too have a share. You have laid hand over it. You have withheld it from us. After this, Ali recalled his relation and close link with the Prophet of God. Then Ali dealt in detail on things that relate him with the Prophet. Abu Bakr was so influenced that he wept. Ali became silent. Then Abu Bakr spoke after thanking and praising God: I swear by God, kinship with the Prophet of God is the dearest thing to me. I do not give preference to my own relations and kinship to that of Prophet of God. I again swear by God that the properties that are between you and me I have not laid possession thereon but for the sake of good and for benefit of all. I have heard from the Prophet of God: We do not leave anything for inheritance. What we leave is charity. The progeny of Muhammad too feeds thereon. I take refuge of God. I do not recall anything that the Prophet had done. I too shall do it. Then Imam Ali (‘a) said: Our rendezvous is afternoon for Bay’at. Abu Bakr after finishing prayers faced the people and narrated the conversation between him and Ali. Then Ali got up. He spoke to the people about the greatness of Abu Bakr and his right. Then he went towards Abu Bakr and did Bay’at with him.

Then people gathered around Ali and appreciated him for what he had done. This narration is quoted by Tabari on the authority of Ayesha.”!86

Narration No. 2

Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari in his book, Al-Imamah was-Siyasah has given another version of the special meeting of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with Abu Bakr.

“Then Abu Bakr went to the Prophet’s mosque and faced the people then he excused Ali for not giving Bay’at to him.

After that Ali got up and praised his station and extolled his greatness and precedence. After this he went to Abu Bakr and did the Bay’at. People approached Ali and said: You did a good thing. After the matter of Abu Bakr’s Bay’at ended he used to tell the people for three days: I left you free for my Bay’at. Is anyone you displeased with it?

Ali stood up before the people and said: By God! We have not appointed you as our leader and chief. It is the Prophet of God who has preferred you over all of us so that our religion remains safe. Now who could drag you behind for the sake of our world?”!87

Each points of this event is astonishing and indicates the falsehood of these two narrations

A) Excuse For Compromise With Abu Bakr!

The Arabic word used means ‘made himself little’ or ‘vilified himself’. This means Ali accepted to vilify himself to compromise with Abu Bakr.

In the two books of Bukhari and Muslim the words are: ‘he implored to compromise with Abu Bakr and do Bay’at.’ In a sense it is near to the above meaning.88

B) Testimony To The Superiority Of Abu Bakr!

The sentence: ‘It does not restrict us to do Bay’at with you, Abu Bakr nor is it a denial of your virtues.’ is a vain allegation in open contradiction with Sunni view of ‘Elected Caliphate’.

It is surprising why Abu Bakr in chaos of Saqifah while disputing with Ansaar did not refer to his virtues or superior qualities.

C) Caliphate Was A Bounty That God Gave To Abu Bakr!

It cannot be believed that Ali (‘a) said: ‘Caliphate was a bounty God directed towards you (Abu Bakr).’89

D) Accepting That Inheritance Of Prophet Was Sadaqah!

It is meant by the words: ‘I have heard from the Prophet of God: We do not leave anything for inheritance. What we leave is charity.’

E) The Prophet Preferred Abu Bakr To Others!

As mentioned in the statement: ‘…Who can detain you for the sake of our world?’

Deviated Consequences Of Forged Narrations

1 – Interpreting and replacing the divinely ordained Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (‘a) with precedence and replacing the Imamate that is divinely ordained into that of Imamate by selection.

2 – Deviation in the meaning of rightfulness of Amirul Momineen (‘a) and change in the meaning of protests of His Eminence, Ali (‘a) in this regard.

3 – Separation of position of Imamate from the position of Caliphate and separation of the holders of these offices!

4 – They not only believe but even persist on Caliphate being at the choice of people.

5 – A wrong interpretation of Ali’s refraining from Bay’at with Abu Bakr and distortion in the analysis of his aims in not doing Bay’at with Abu Bakr.

6 – Finally Ali’s willingness to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr without any compulsion.

7 – Giving legitimacy to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and bringing it out of the circle of usurpation.

8 – Excusing Abu Bakr for his perversion from religious course.

9 – Showing as though Islamic regulations were practiced in Abu Bakr’s rule.

10 – Showing as though Abu Bakr had committed himself to follow the conduct of the Prophet.

11 – Showing as though Ali had a belief in fitness of Abu Bakr to the office he had usurped.90

12 – Showing as though Ali participated in the administration of the government.

13 – Showing as though Ali compensated the shortcomings of Abu Bakr.

14 – Showing as though there lasted good relations based on good terms with Ahlul Bayt (‘a) of the Prophet from the side of Abu Bakr.

15 – Showing as though there lasted goodwill, peace, affection and friendship from the side of Ali towards Abu Bakr.

Thus they say:

“Imam Ali (‘a) had another point in his view. He feared the things would spoil and a chaos might take place if the administration falls in incompetent hands. So he hesitated to do Bay’at for some period. He was very much concerned that no corruption creeps in religion or belief of people. But later Imam Ali (‘a) saw Abu Bakr handled the matters prudently. He was particular to keep within bounds of religion and also particular to carry out the penalties, decrees and other religious commitments. This satisfied Ali. At this point, he did not allow himself to prolong his hesitation. So he finally did Bay’at.”!91

“Ali inspite of his position did Bay’at with Abu Bakr without any coercion. First he pointed out his mistakes then drew Abu Bakr’s attention to failings in administration. He gave legitimacy to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. When all the loopholes were filled, he saw no reason to not enter into Bay’at with Abu Bakr. Later he co-operated with Abu Bakr in running the government.”!92

This shows how elevated the position of Ali was. In fact, Ali occupied the highest rank. His position was greater than Caliphate. He invited Abu Bakr to his house. Abu Bakr repeatedly acknowledged the superiority of Ali and verbally and practically extolled the greatness of Ali. Ali too frankly said:

“We do not deny your bright past nor do we deny your virtues.”

“We are not rivals to you in your Caliphate. We do not envy you. Bay’at was withheld for this reason that Imam Ali (‘a) because of his position as Imam and a guardian should have been consulted.

But when Abu Bakr swore that he endears the link with the Prophet more than his own relatives and kinship and commits himself to follow the footsteps of Prophet, Ali said to him: Tomorrow for Bay’at our rendezvous is the mosque.”!93

“There is no crime greater than that there be accord between the Imam and Caliph but discord among the people.”!94

What Does History Say?

We need not go after a proof or testimony. The falsehoods are obvious and evident in both the narrations of Tabari and Ibn Qutaibah. We suffice only with the statement of the Second Caliph to Ali and Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle.

It is a confession of Umar in the presence of Uthman, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Zubair and Saad bin Abi Waqqas.95 The falsehood of above narrations is proved at once.

Document No. 1

This document is recorded and mentioned in Sahih Muslim one of the most reputed and reliable sources among Sunni sect. In this document Umar bin Khattab says:

“The Prophet passed away. Abu Bakr said: I am the (wali) successor96 of the Messenger of Allah (S) in your leadership.

You two (Abbas and Ali) came to demand your inheritance. You (Abbas)
demanded inheritance of your nephew and you (Ali) inheritance of your wife from her father.

Then Abu Bakr said: The Messenger of Allah (S) said: We are not inherited. What we leave is charity.

But you accused him to be a liar, a sinner, a cheater and a betrayer.”97

Even if Imam Ali (‘a) had accepted one of these things for Abu Bakr was it proper for him to praise him before the people?

Document No. 2

Indeed even if claims of Bukhari, Tabari and Ibn Qutaibah regarding the issue of Bay’at of free choice and the conversation of Ali with Abu Bakr and his words – all this were also true, why did Ali in the six-person committee openly reject the condition put forward by Ibn Auf that made it compulsory to follow the conduct of two Caliphs? Ali openly refused to follow the footsteps of Abu Bakr and Umar and put to question the legality of their Caliphate.98

Similarly, there are other historical documents that Imam Ali (‘a) did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr after Zahra’s martyrdom. Because as it is said:

The term Bay’at carries a distinct sense in Islam. It makes some matters necessary for one who enters into Bay’at.

On the basis of this foresight of Umar bin Khattab and Amr Aas about the reactions of Amirul Momineen (‘a) that it would be at least a ceasefire between His Eminence (‘a) and Abu Bakr and Amirul Momineen (‘a) will only give up his dispute with Abu Bakr.99

Document No. 3

Abu Bakr says to Umar in consultation:

“I plan to send Ali to the battle against Kinda and Hadhramaut (in Yemen) as I am aware of his courage, bravery and virtues. He is a man of Justice. So a majority of people would be pleased with him.

Umar agreed and confirmed the qualities, which Abu Bakr attributed to Ali but said: I am afraid Ali would not agree100 and if he refused no one would show any inclination to go to war except by force.101

Therefore, I suggest that Ali remains in Medina and the Caliph benefits from his consultation while Akrama bin Abi Jahl can go to fight.

Abu Bakr agreed to Umar’s proposal.”102 “Ali did not go to fight their battles since neither he considered their Caliphate illegitimate not the Kinda people apostates but the Caliph and his advisors feared in this matter and delegated Akrama to the battle.”103

Document No. 4

Abu Bakr summoned Amr Aas and asked his opinion how to utilize the services of Ali in suppressing Tolaiha.

“Amr said: Ali will not obey your order.”104

In conclusion, it can be said:

These two documents clearly indicate that Bay’at which took place was not at a free choice nor it was done willingly and nor it was in relation to Murtad Arabs otherwise Ali (‘a) would have accepted the command of the Caliph’s army and obeyed his orders.

Final conclusion about Bay’at by choice as Sunnis claim

A) From all investigations in this regard it can be concluded that except for the attack on Zahra’s house no other efforts were made by the Caliph to take allegiance from Ali (‘a). Still with every leniency we can say:

Ali performed something similar to Bay’at.105 This also he did to save Islam within a limited framework.

Imam Ali (‘a) about his attitude says:

“People did Bay’at with Abu Bakr while (by Allah) I was more superior to him and deserving of it.106 So I too obeyed107 fearing the people would return to infidelity. Some would cut throat of some by sword. After Abu Bakr Bay’at was given to Umar [and he was made Caliph] while (by God) I was more deserving108 than he to it. But I feared people might become infidels.”(109)(110)

B) All narrations, which take root from various and several sources, are dubious and not certain. They are rife with signs of falsehood and deviation. In such a way that it can be said:

The aim of spreading these narrations is to veil the shameful deeds and attack on Zahra’s house to take Bay’at from His Eminence (‘a) in the initial period of the usurped Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

C) If we pay attention to the conditions under which Bay’at of Ali was, it would be clear that it was invalid from religious viewpoint.

D) Analysis of events after passing away of Prophet rescinds the use of the word Bay’at even if it were concomitant with its conditions. The sense by terms of such ‘silence’ or ‘not campaigning by sword’ do not convey the meaning of Bay’at. Therefore it would be better to use them instead of Bay’at.

E) In the analysis of events after the martyrdom of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) – supposedly accepting the historical documents – it could only be called a Bay’at of show and hence invalid from the legal point of view.

- 1. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, Pg. 22.

- 2. Thus Ibn Kathir in his audacity has put a question mark of the infallibility of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) who is protected by the guarantee of the Verse of Purification. (Ibn Kathir: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 5, Pg. 249 & Pg. 286).

- 3. Tradition No. 3913.

- 4. Tradition No. 3304.

- 5. Muhammad Ismail Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Tradition No. 2862.

- 6. Ibid. Tradition No. 3913; Muslim bin Hajjaj: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3304.

- 7. As you will see in the text of Ibn Qutaibah Dinawari in Al-Imamah was-Siyasah in the description of the condolence of these two for Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) the same attitude is present.

- 8. Asghar Qaidan: Tahleeli Bar Mawaze Siyasi Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) Research on political stands of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a), Pg. 89.

- 9. Even though these clarifications close all avenues of falsehood propagators we must not be unmindful of the aims of confession makers.

- 10. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Raahi Bi Soo-e-Wahdat-e-Islami (Way to Islamic Unity), Pg. 163.

- 11. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Mashal-e-Ittehaad (Torch of Unity), Pg. 20.

- 12. Ibid. Paara-e-Payambar (Portion of the Prophet), Vol. 6, Pgs. 14-15.

- 13. Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 587.

- 14. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 2, Pgs. 29-30; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 1, Pgs. 1871-1875.

- 15. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 30.

- 16. The details of this forgery are as follows: Tabari proceeds: Abu Bakr’s army chased them (the Murtad) until Zilqissa. This was the first victory gained by Abu Bakr.
(Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 32; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 1, Pgs. 1880-1885)
Then he continues. The followers of Tolaiha remained in Abraq – Rabaza. The army (of Abu Bakr) chased them upto Zilqissa. Tolaiha sent a message to Gidila and Ghouse. They were two branches of Tai tribe and invited them to help him. Some at once marched towards him in compliance with his message. They enjoined others to join Tolaiha gradually.
(Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 52; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 1, Pgs. 1871-1873)

When Abu Bakr saw such developments, he was encouraged and moved towards the territory of Zilqissa. There he gathered a large army of Muslims. Since the army was great and vast in manpower, he divided it into eleven battalions, each under a commander. He gave a banner to each commander and ordered each of them to move to a tribe that had gone Murtad. In biographies Saif bin Umar is described as follows; it is enough to prove that he was a liar.
(Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 52; quoting from: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 1, Pgs. 1880-1885)

- 17. The first and the second battle was related to the Abraq wars and it the preface of it and the fourth battle was connected to Zilqissa expedition in the eleventh group (Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 45-46).

- 18. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 46-47.

- 19. Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 70.

- 20. Refer: Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 1, Pgs. 1871-1872 (Events preceding the battle of apostates); Ibid. Vol. 1, Pgs. 1873-1875 (Battle of Abraq); Ibid. Vol. 1, Pgs. 1880-1885 (Battle of Zilqissa and war of Buzakha); Ibid. Vol. 1, Pgs. 1871-1873 (Apostasy of Tai tribe); Ibid. Vol. 1, Pg. 1902.

- 21. On the basis of this same quotation we will analyze the claim of free Bayyat.

- 22. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane, Vol. 2, Pgs. 40-41.

- 23. On the basis of this same quotation we will analyze the claim of free Bayyat.

- 24. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 43.

- 25. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 58.

- 26. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 61.

- 27. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 58.

- 28. Ibid. Vol. 2, Pg. 61.

- 29. Refer: Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pg. 34; Pg. 41 (Commanders of Ridda wars); Pg. 39 & Pg. 117 (Instruction of Abu Bakr to Amirul Momineen (‘a) for defending Medina).

- 30. Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pg. 120.

- 31. Refer: Waqidi: Kitab Al-Ridha, Pg. 48; Ibn Kathir: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 312; Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 242.

- 32. Quoted from: Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 242.

- 33. Quoted from: Mahdi Razaqallah Ahmad, Ath-Thabitoon Alal Islam Ayyam Fitnatur Ridda, Pg. 20; quoting from: Kalai Balansi: Haroob Al-Ridha, Pg. 41.

- 34. Quoted from: Ibn Saad: Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 1, Pg. 293; Ibn Hisham: As-Sirah an-Nabawiya, Vol. 2, Pg. 309; Dayar Bakri: Tarikh Khamees, Vol. 2, Pgs. 21-22; Waqidi: Kitab Al-Ridha, Pgs. 54-67.

- 35. Quoted from: Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 264; Dayar Bakri: Tarikh Khamees, Vol. 2, Pg. 202.

- 36. Quoted from: Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 3, Pg. 243.

- 37. Quoted from: Maqdisi: Al-Bado wat-Tarikh, Vol. 6, Pg. 151.

- 38. Quoted from: Khurshid Ahmad Farooq: Tarikh Al-Ridha, Pgs. 5-8.

- 39. Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pgs. 33-37.

- 40. Regretfully the author of Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar has ignored this point and he thinks that the apostasy of the people was a factor of Bayyat by Amirul Momineen (‘a).
But he has also mentioned about the dissatisfaction of His Eminence Ali (‘a) with Abu Bakr in the matter of dealing with the apostates without his direct intervention.
(Refer: Ibid. Pgs. 115-118 & Pg. 120)

- 41. It is matter for contemplation and there is stronger possibility of it being fabricated.

- 42. Refer: Abdullah Ibn Saba Wa Deegar Afsaane (Abdullah Bin Saba and other legends), Vol. 1, Pg. 196; Vol. 2, Pgs. 56-57.

- 43. Refer: Ibid. Vol. 2, Pgs. 51-52.

- 44. Refer: Ali Labbaf, A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol. 3, Pgs. 140-173; Pgs. 183-190.

- 45. Allamah Sayyid Murtadha Al-Askari: Saqifah, Edited by Mahdi Dashti, Pg. 116.

- 46. By sword.

- 47. Tabari Imami: Al-Mustarshid, Pgs. 383-384 (Published Mahmoodi).

- 48. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5, Pg. 181.

- 49. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 175.

- 50. Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 383.

- 51. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pgs. 305-306.

- 52. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 154.

- 53. Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 383.

- 54. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 302.

- 55. Some researchers consider him responsible of making alterations in this letter.
(Refer: Ali Akbar Zakiri: Hukoomat O Siyasat, Pg. 61, Possibility B); This view also supports that the mentioned letter is not reliable and there is greater possibility of it being forged.

- 56. Muhammad bin Jurair bin Rustam.

- 57. Mahmoodi Edition, Pg. 408.

- 58. Refer: Ali Akbar Zakiri: Hukoomat O Siyasat, Pg. 32.

- 59. In the coming pages we will criticize this quotation and also discuss the intellectual inclinations and religious leanings of Ibn Qutaibah.

- 60. Ali Akbar Zakiri: Seemai Kaarguzaaraan Ali Ibn Abi Talib Amirul Momineen (‘a), Vol. 2, Pg. 124.

- 61. Rasool Ja’faryan: Manabe Tarikh Islam, Pg. 150.

- 62. Quoted from: Muhaddith Qummi: Tatammatul Muntaha, Pg. 270.

- 63. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 245.

- 64. Shaykh Mufeed: Amali, Pg. 267.

- 65. Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pg. 71 .

- 66. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 245; quoting from: Muhaddith Noori: Mustadrak al-Wasael, Vol. 1, Pg. 44.

- 67. Refer: Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 26; Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 188; Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 162; Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 22.

- 68. Sayyid Abul Fazl Barqai in his Preface to the book, Shahira-e-Ittihaad has argued on the basis of these sentences.

- 69. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 210.

- 70. Hashimi Khoei: Minhaaj al-Bara-a, Vol. 6, Pg. 106.

- 71. His Eminence, Ali (‘a) by these words has put a question mark on the public and general acceptance of the Caliphs.

- 72. Muhammad Baqir Mahmoodi: Nahjus Saada Fee Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 4, Pg. 23.

- 73. Sayyid Ali Khan Madani: Ad-Darajaat ar-Rafia (Elevated Positions), Pg. 336.

- 74. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Article in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 2, Pg. 38.

- 75. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 307.

- 76. Tabari Imami: Al-Mustarshid, Pg. 415 (Mahmoodi Edition).

- 77. Ibid. Pg. 412 (Mahmoodi Edition).

- 78. Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 1, Pgs. 282-283.

- 79. Tabari Imami: Al-Mustarshid, Pg. 412 (Mahmoodi Edition).

- 80. Thaqafi Kufi: Al-Ghaaraat (with Preface and Notes by Meer Jalaluddin Muhaddith Armawi), Vol. 1, Pg. 306.

- 81. It denotes a phrase of marginal notes inserted into the actual text.

- 82. Quoted from: Al-Mustarshid, this statement is also worth noting: If I had not done so, Islam would have been destroyed.

- 83. Muhammad Barfi: Article quoted in Collected Papers of International Conference on Imam Ali, Vol. 2, Pg. 49.

- 84. Only in this instance we can say that it was show Bayyat because there is no indication of force in it.

- 85. Tabari Shafei: Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulook, Vol. 2, Pg. 447.

- 86. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Shahira-e-Ittihaad, Pgs. 20-21.

- 87. Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 33.

- 88. Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Tradition no. 3913; Muslim: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3304.

- 89. If the Imam (‘a) really had such beliefs how can we justify his refraining from allegiance of Abu Bakr for six months and what about the anger of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) against the Caliphs?

- 90. Results no. 8-11 are that they begin to think that Abu Bakr had the capability to obtain Caliphate.

- 91. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 169.

- 92. Ibid. Shahira-e-Ittihaad, Pg. 292.

- 93. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 5, Pgs. 21-22.

- 94. Ibid. Hambastigi-e-Mazaahib-e-Islami (2nd Edition), Pg. 255.

- 95. At the beginning of the narration it is mentioned that these people were present.

- 96. It is interesting that Abu Bakr uses the word of Wali for his Caliphate but Sunnis take it in the meaning of friend!

- 97. Muslim bin Hajjaj Nishapuri: Sahih Muslim, Tradition no. 3302.

- 98. Refer: Ibn Qutaibah: Al-Imamah was-Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 26; Ibn Abil Hadeed: Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 188; Yaqoobi: Tarikh, Vol. 2, Pg. 162; Balazari: Ansaab al-Ashraaf, Vol. 5, Pg. 22.

- 99. Most of Ahlul Sunnat sources mention that the role of Amirul Momineen (‘a) in this matter was giving counsel with regard to the battle of Zilqissa (Ref: Ibn Kathir: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 6, Pg. 315).

- 100. The aim of the regime in sending Uthman to Amirul Momineen (‘a) must also be in pursuit of this same point.

- 101. Such refusals clearly show absence of Bayyat.

- 102. Ali Gholami Dahqi: Janghai Irtdidat wa Bohran Janasheeni-e-Payambar, Pg. 116; quoting from: Waqidi: Kitab Al-Ridha, Pgs. 197-198; Ibn Athim: Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pg. 57.

- 103. Ibid. Pg. 117.

- 104. Ibid. Pg. 117; quoting from: Yaqoobi: Tarikh Yaqoobi, Vol. 2, Pg. 129.

- 105. Shaykh Tusi (q.s.) remarks: “Can anyone whose door is burned upon him has any other choice than giving Bayyat?” (Shaykh Tusi: Talkhees Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 76).

- 106. The right of Caliphate was restricted to me.

- 107. It implies second obedience. Second obedience is obeying kings and rulers whose obedience is not divinely ordained and they have occupied the seat of power by force. The Almighty Allah has allowed their obedience for Amirul Momineen (‘a) because it was necessary for security of religion and preventing people from turning back from Islam. (Ref: Muhammad Biyabani Iskoi, Marefat-e-Imam, Pgs. 22-23).

- 108. The right of Caliphate was restricted to me.

- 109. Khwarizmi: Manaqib, Section 19, Pg. 313; Juwaini: Faraidus Simatain, Vol. 1, Pg. 320, No. 251; Ibn Asakir: Tarikh Madina Damishq, Vol. 42, Pg. 434; Dhahabi: Mizan al-Etedaal, Vol. 1, Pg. 442; Asqalani: Lisanul Mizan, Vol. 2, Pg. 156; Muttaqi Hindi: Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5, Pg. 724.

- 110. Amirul Momineen (‘a) was forced to give up armed resistance as he feared the apostasy of Ummah and destruction of Islam.

Section Two; Influence Of Deviation On Shia Belief Of Imamate

Discourse 1: Imamate And Caliphate From Sunni Viewpoint

Ahlul Sunnat believe that:

Imamate and Caliphate means rulership.

Ibn Khaldun writes about the Sunni view of Imamate and Caliphate:

First Description

“Imamate concerns common and general interests, which in their true sense relate to Ummah. And the Ummah can choose or appoint any person as Imam. And that person becomes responsible to administer the general affairs and common interests of the Ummah concerned.”!1

Second Description

“Caliphate is seating a person in place of the Prophet to protect religion and worldly affairs.”!2

According to the first description, general and common interests of Ummah constitute the real meaning of Imamate and Caliphate. The second description embraces these two elements by way of meaning:

A) Administration of religious affairs (guarding faith)

B) Administration of worldly affairs (policies of world)

On the basis of descriptions that Sunni sect presents, it emerges to be administration of apparent rules of Islam in a society. Isfahani Ashari in his Sharh Tajreed describes Imamate as follows:

“Succession of the Prophet by a person from the Ummah to establish the rules of religion.”!

As a result: The meaning of Imamate and Caliphate among Sunni sect is only supervising the political and social affairs of Ummah.

Other testimonies that testify the above are:

Evidence 1) The Sunni sect argues the need of Ummah to have a Caliph and Imam3 as says Taftazani:

“Ummah must have an Imam to keep faith alive and to keep the tradition (of the Prophet) in practice. An Imam must attend to the oppressed and restore the rights of people.”!4

“The Prophet has commanded to carry out the decrees of God, to protect the frontiers, prepare the armies for holy war and several other things for guarding the system and supporting Islam (particularly the essence). All this cannot be achieved except by an Imam.”!5

Evidence 2) The Sunni sect has a list of duties and responsibilities incumbent on Imam and Caliph alike. They are as follows according to Baqilani:

“He (an Imam) must be in knowledge so as to qualify him to be a judge of Muslims. He must be with a sight that could enable him to see into affairs of war and manage armies and concomitant things and could be able to protect frontiers and save Islam; save the Ummah. He must be daring enough to take revenge from tyrants and preserve the rights of oppressed.”!6

According to this description Imamate and Caliphate in Sunni concept tantamount to rulership. Ibn Taimmiyah comments:

“Imamate and Caliphate is same as rulership or sultanate.”7

Sunnis believe that:

Imamate and Caliphate is through selection!

The Prophet has not appointed anyone as a Caliph or Imam, but left it to the choice of people. Therefore anyone can be Imam or Caliph of Islam if he is chosen by people.8

It shows that in Sunni thought Imamate and Caliphate depends on choice of people and not divine appointment.

So Ibn Khaldun in his description of Imamate and Caliphate says:

“Imamate (= rulership) is among the general and common matters that is delegated to the Ummah, so anyone that the Ummah chooses will be Caliph and Imam.”9

In the same way Shahristani mentions the outlook of Abul Hasan Ashari about this Sunni belief:

“It is permissible that there should be Nass (Ayat or hadith) for a person that he is Imam, but if there is no Nass about that person10the Ummah is free to have its own choice.”11

Therefore the office of Imamate and Caliphate is a matter of choice not to be appointed by God. It is left to the Ummah.

Conclusion

As you must have noted the meaning of Sunni concept of Imamate and Caliphate stands at the level of administration of social justice by means of judiciary and general security by means of executing Islamic punishment and guarding the country by means of providing an army. Furthermore, it is also expected to give expansion to Islam by means of conquering (foreign) territories or countries. All the above items are more or less of common interests of a Ummah in its worldly and religious affairs. In one word – all this is called a government.

On the other hand this government is a chosen one not an appointed body or institution. In Sunni belief,12 God has not fixed a particular person to head this institution.13

Therefore according to Sunni outlook Imamate and Caliphate is a social position14 and a popular rank.15 Under the shadow of this selected or chosen government, the common interests of Ummah are looked after and provided. The needs of people are attended to. To gain power and authority is enough to form Caliphate.16

Sunni Believe: Obtaining Power and Dominance is Sufficient for Formation of Caliphate!

In the trend of Sunni thought, the prime aim by framing Imamate and Caliphate is to lay hand upon common and general interests of the Ummah.

In between this the choice of Ummah is a necessity to achieve the aim referred above. When Caliphate is the choice of people, it rescinds the necessity for a Quranic text.17

The contagion of this thought has stricken even some among Shia youths. Well, if it is the choice of people18 why the Ummah by all its individuals did not participate in selecting a Caliph?

If Caliphate comes into being by means of choice why the choice of each individual was not sought. In fact, committee of consultation and Bay’at is a means to give shape to Caliphate.

Their stressing on choice of people is only to form a government to serve popular needs. It is only to reach power and gain rule over society. It is the only ground for Sunni Sect by chosen Caliphate to achieve the aim, which is control over society and domination over it. And to give it legitimacy19 they consider it sufficient20 as Ibn Taimmiyah has explained:

“The purpose from Imamate is to obtain power and authority.”! 2122

By Imamate and Caliphate, it is not necessary to go beyond the conditions of gaining control of society. The nature of Caliphate is included in a government.

Ibn Taimmiyah further comments:

“Leaders of Sunni Sect have said:

Whoever gains power and control23 can gain the Guardianship to which obedience becomes compulsory according to God’s command.”!(24)(25)

From Sunni outlook one who possesses power and authority has a right to rule and run a government. Power is the base in Sunni thought for ground of Imamate and Caliphate. The belief of Sunni Sect is to attain power first to establish Caliphate. A Caliph must be obeyed from a Sunni view because he holds a government. In Sunni thought the whole process is made simple and easy. If one attains power and control over society by any means or method, the aim of Caliphate is achieved, which is security of popular interests.

Then at this stage responsibility of choosing a Caliphate is relieved from individuals of society. Once a Caliph is made known, others have no responsibility in this regard.

Qadi Abdul Jabbar says:

“When those who tie and untie26 appoint one as Imam, the incumbency of choosing an Imam gets relieved from the people. The sufficiency27 is achieved.”!28

Sunnis believe that: Caliphate is achieved through whatever means 29 and methods it might have been.

Installment of Imamate and Caliphate and achievement of its aim is based on principle of obtaining power and control over affairs of society. The means and methods here do not matter. That which matters is that one individual in the Ummah must attain power over society. If it is attained, it means a Caliphate is established; and through Caliphate a government is established.30 Such is in line with the Caliphs that existed in Sunni school.

It does not mean that all people must participate in choosing a Caliph.

If one person or few persons performed the appointment of Caliph it is enough. It relieves responsibility from others. To establish a chosen government does not call for whole population to participate. As goes Caliphate so goes the government.

Juwaini has this to comment:

“Do know that consensus is not a condition in establishing Imamate and Caliphate. Imamate will be established if there had not had been any consensus at all. So it became clear that consensus is not a condition to bring Caliphate into existence. Consensus has no bearing on Caliphate. Consensus has nothing to do with Caliphate. There is neither limit nor specified number.31 Imamate comes into being only by those who tie and untie.”!32

Qadi Abdul Jabbar comments:

“If some among those who tie and untie choose one to be Imam, he becomes Imam. If no one among Muslims does Bay’at with him, it does not affect him. He is the acknowledged Imam because the people who tie and untie have chosen him to be Imam.”!33

So this shows that in Sunni Sect even force and tyranny can be used as means to obtain Caliphate.

Taftazani has this to say:

“Imamate can be achieved by several means. The third way is force and domination. So when an Imam dies, another man having conditions of Imamate can become Imam without people doing Bay’at with him nor it is necessary that he should have been nominated by his predecessor. He can become Imam by means of force or taking the initiative to occupy the seat. by this way he can even become a successor to Prophet.”!34

Abu Yali comments:

“One who gains upper hand over people by means of sword becomes a Caliph and is called Ameer al-Momineen. Then it is not allowed to anyone who believes in God and Day of Judgment to pass the night without acknowledging him as an Imam.”!35

Sunnis believe that: Imam and Caliph can be a Tyrant, a Sinner or Profligate!

The preceding pages clearly show that the only condition required in a person to qualify him as a caliph is competency to administer affairs of the country. Competency is not a thing that could not be applied on several persons at a time.

Therefore according to above it does not become necessary that a Caliph must excel others in all qualities such as religious knowledge, common information, moral, conduct, human virtues and superiority of behavior.

It is not demanded for him to be the Caliph that he must be superior to all. He is an administrator, a manager or a director and that’s all.

Without superiority in him, he can secure the common interests, which are required of him.

Qalqashandi says:

“Even if a man who gains power and domination on others is a sinner or ignorant; his Imamate is achieved and established.”!(36)(37)

Taftazani says:

“It is not necessary that an Imam must be a Hashimite or an infallible and superior to all. An Imam when installed or chosen cannot be dismissed or removed because of his sinfulness!”

Taftazani proceeds further and adds:

“Caliphate is vested and assigned to him although he be ignorant or sinner.”38

Nawawi says:

“The Sunni Sect has unanimously agreed that a Caliph cannot be deposed from office due to his sins and profligacy.”39

Baqilani says:

“An Imam cannot be dismissed because of his sins and oppression on people.40 And uprising and rebellion against him is not allowed.41”

Sunnis believe that: Imamate and Caliphate is a branch of Religion!

In the system of Sunni thought the formation of government is the duty of Ummah. So all discussions concerning Imamate and Caliphate in a way relate to actions of adults and rules and regulations of their obligations.

In other words according to outlook of Sunni Sect the subject of Imamate is among branches of jurisprudence. It supervises the actions of adults on whom apply religious duties. Imamate and Caliphate has no bearing on belief of religion of Islam.

Eji says:

“Imamate and Caliphate is not a pillar of faith as Shias believe.42 It is not a principle of religion.43

This subject has nothing to do with religion. It is – in our view – a branch that concerns actions of adults. To install an Imam is incumbent on Ummah.”44

Taftazani says:

“The regulations of Imamate are in branches of religion. Imamate is not a principle. There is no dispute about the suitability of this subject to constitute the branch of religion.

On the whole this branch relates to the worldly interests and interests of religion. The society cannot be administered without this branch.

The aim of the Prophet was that these affairs be attained by general people and not by each individual.

It is obvious that Imamate is a practical side of commands. It is not matter of belief. It is in our books of jurisprudence.”45

Sunnis believe that: Imamate and Caliphate are branches of no importance!

The Sunni Sect does not regard the subject of Imamate and Caliphate among basic pillars of faith nor among principles of belief. They even do not provide a room to this subject among issues of jurisprudence. In short, they regard this subject as superfluous or of no importance.

Abu Hamid Ghazzali says:

“Do know that it is not so important to research about Imamate or conduct a study into it. It is also not among intellectual sciences; it is among issues of jurisprudence.”46

Saifuddin Amadi says:

“Know that it is not a religious principle to discuss about Imamate. It is excusable if there be no way to refrain from discussion or no way to get rid of ignorance about it.47”48

Discourse 2: Sunni-inclined interpretations of Imamate and Wilayat

According to the belief of seekers of revision in Shia Faith:

Imamate and Wilayat is in the meaning of rulership!

Those who are after revision in Shia beliefs49 are easily entrapped in deviated beliefs. It could be due to their inclination to discussions related to Islamic government. They are prey of this perverted belief of chosen Caliphate.

The first particularity of the system of ‘chosen Caliphate’ has enchanted50 these open-minded ones or seekers of revision in belief. They have fallen prey to consider the subject of Imamate and Wilayat unimportant in relation to rulership.

According to this all traditions, Quranic verses and signs related to the subject of Imamate and Wilayat have become an object of moral deviation and perversion, which is, of course detrimental and very much harmful. It has a direct bearing on government.

Thus it is claimed:

“In the pristine faith of Islam the subject of Imamate concerns only government affairs and administration of political and social affairs and issues of Ummah.”!51

“Imamate means leadership and to run the political affairs of Islamic Ummah.”!52

“The executive of Islamic orders applies to Waliul Amr (possessor of affairs).”!53

“If an Islamic ruler carries out an Islamic order or commandment he is called Waliul Amr.”!54

“In Quran Waliul Amr is mentioned which gains meaning in the domain of government!”

“In Islamic literature, the word Imam is mentioned repeatedly. It is used in a sense of chief of government. His duties have been discussed repeatedly.”!55

“The dispute between Shia and Sunni since centuries is on the issue of government.”!56

According to the belief of seekers of revision in Shia Faith:

Wilayat and Imamate is rulership and an elected post

These advocates of revision in beliefs of Shia are strongly inclined that Ummah must be present in field of Islamic government, which is the second deviation of this group.

Thus it is claimed:

“Wilayat and rulership that is surrendered by people to an administrator if it carries Islamic conditions, it will be a divine government and it will be called an Islamic government as well as a popular one….”!57

Their superficial understanding about elected Caliphate and elected nature of government is the real cause of their deviation.

As said in preceding pages the theory of selection goes beyond the issue of Imamate and Caliphate and becomes a common field without any divine sanction.58

Choice is a deceptive word used only to avoid or overshadow its being a divine office. This term is utilized in the issue of Caliphate and Imamate to attract the attention of revision-seekers or the so-called modern open minded youths. Then it can be easily claimed:

“The choice of government after the Prophet does not lie in the hands of Prophet. But it lies in hands of people to choose whomever they like.”59

“To choose or to select an Imam is only the right of Ummah.”60

“Chief Executive of Muslims is a chosen one.”61

“To choose a Waliul Amr is a determined certainty of all Muslims which is unchangeable.”62

“The responsibility of installing the government of Quran is an obligation on all Muslims. The ruler of Muslims is chosen from among the masses themselves.”63

“The issue of Caliphate, Imamate and appointment of a chief is in the hands of people.”64

“It is the people who give Wilayat to whoever they desire in an open environment of freedom. It is the people who give entity and reality to his rule. These are powers of the masses which furnish reality to Wilayat and authority of Imam.”65

“A man chosen by people has the right to govern the people.”66

“Islam has vested rulership and authority to the masses themselves.”67

According to the belief of seekers of revision in Shia Faith:

Only ways of installing Imamate and Wilayat (Rulership) are consultation and Bay’at

The view that consultation and Bay’at are correct ways has exercised great influence on minds of seekers of revision in Shia beliefs. To think so is a particularity of the system of the thought of ‘chosen Caliphate’.

In the preceding discussion, it was indicated that in the system of conjecture of ‘chosen Caliphate’ in reality consultation and Bay’at have a very narrow and tight domain. But the simple-minded people do not detect this and are easily dominated by false allegations and window-dressing, because there are several other ways to install a Caliphate.

In other words, those who have laid the foundation of ‘chosen Caliphate’ do not treat Bay’at and consultation as the only way to establish Caliphate. Furthermore, they do not consider it necessary for each and every individual of Ummah to have a say in choosing the Caliph. The founders of chosen Caliphate have made the job for themselves easy. Since the beginning they were particular to clear the way and avoid setbacks and hindrances.

The close inclination to Bay’at and consultation has caused this group of revision-seekers to persist on this principle as the only way to establish Imamate and Wilayat. They want to purge the beliefs of founders of theory of chosen Caliphate, although it is an attraction to them. Yet they criticize the system of Sunni thought68 that why they go after other ways and means and leave aside the way of consultation.

They have the following claim:

“The Sunni Sect has gone against Divine commands and traditions of the Prophet with regard to Caliphate and Caliph. They do not follow the conditions which exist in own books including the reputed Sahih Bukhari and Sahih of Muslim. The qualities of Caliph are stated therein. But in practice they did not exercise these conditions.”69

“If they refer to their own books and traditions, they could see what is required in the personality of the Caliph. But the thing is they have overlooked these facts.”70

“Almost all Islamic sects have gone astray with regard to issue of Caliphate. The Quranic verse of Ulil Amr was forgotten from the first day. It was rightful to have these two verses of Ulil Amr as touchstones after the Prophet’s passing away. Each one of companions was an object of this verse and was suitable to be a Caliph. Such a practice would have lasted until the Days of Judgment. Caliphate would have been a Quranic one.”71

Rulership of Muslims is selection according to the command of Quran! One whose qualities are specified by Quran…Muslims must choose as their Executive since it is enjoined by Quran.

So since the era of Muawiyah upto now all leaders of Islam were chosen against Quranic standards.”72

It is misunderstanding the meaning of chosen Caliphate that impelled revision-seekers to purge the beliefs of Sunni outlook on this issue. And they limited their criticism to Sunnis only to this subject.

While what they criticize is coherent with the thought of chosen Caliphate. Contrary to their imagination, the Sunni Sect is not lacking anything in the issue of Imamate and Caliphate. They do their job without Bay’at and consultation.

On the whole, it can be said:

Wrong conclusions about conjecture of chosen Caliphate have resulted in a belief that there is no way other than Bay’at and consultation to appoint a Caliph. Therefore they say:

“The real issue of Caliphate according to traditions and Quran is based on consultation and choice.”73

“The matter of rulership in Islam is through consultation and selection.”74

While the system of Imamate and Caliphate (rulership) is so designed that no criticism applies thereon because the thought in Sunni conjecture is based on choice.

The revision-seekers regard Bay’at and consultation as the only way to fix Imamate and Wilayat. They emphasize on it too much.

This group in the end justifies all other ways of forming Caliphate (rulership) and they further say:

“Domination over masses by means of force or succession or Bay’at by only a few people is not ground of governorship. If it does not secure the satisfaction of all, it would be short of validity. If it is supported by agreement of all it is a valid choice.”75

According to the belief of seekers of revision in Shia Faith:

Consultation and Bay’at is source of legitimacy of Imamate and Wilayat

Misunderstanding of this group regarding view of chosen Caliphate is the cause for considering Bay’at and consultation to be the only ways to form Caliphate and Islamic government. But they have gone even farther. They think that Bay’at and consultation is the means to give legitimacy to the chosen Caliphate.

Thus it is said:

“Discussion is how to establish the system of Wilayat and Imamate. It would not attain popularity through means of Bay’at and consultation.”76

“A head of government must be chosen through consultation and public opinion. The Holy Quran refers to this as a legitimate way. It further lays stress on the necessity of its practice in absence of the Prophet.”77

“The principle of consultation in Islam is an absolute principle. If the government happens to lack this principle, it will not be legitimate.”78

“If people choose a man of their choice by consultation with Imam or a guardian to administer affairs of Islamic government it will please God.”79

“Bay’at is a right of leader on the masses. This gives legitimacy to government. A governor or a ruler has no command on the people and people too have no obligation to obey him.”80

“As long as people have not done Bay’at with him they are not obliged to obey him. But as soon as they do Bay’at with him his rule becomes legitimate and obedience becomes a religious duty on them.”81

“Rightfulness of Islamic government comes to light when the people have entered into Bay’at with it.”82

All this is borrowed from belief of Sunni Sect about the issue of Imamate of selection. As a matter of fact, the chosen Caliphate on the basis of Bay’at and consultation has quite a different dimension with Sunnis. But revision-seekers are unaware of it.

To explain further:

Founders of ‘chosen Caliphate’ believe in its substitute or transferring it to another. This is against Quranic verse and Divine appointment as is the belief of Shia Imamiyah Sect. Sunni belief is briefed in this:

God has allotted a right to people to choose an Imam for themselves to administer their affairs and govern the society.

To prove their belief that God has sanctioned them to choose an Imam they follow several ways. One of the important ways is Bay’at and consultation. According to them it has an important place in Islam.

In other words, founders of chosen Caliphate believe its legitimacy lies in substitution of authority. Therefore they lay much stress on consultation and Bay’at because they think it a correct one.

Therefore these two elements, consultation and Bay’at are to them one of several ways to appoint Caliphate. They bring it forward as the origin of legitimacy. This is the only proof with them towards correctness of theory of transferring the authority.

In other words they regard consultation and Bay’at as the only important sign, which gives them the right of choosing a Caliph for the Ummah. They think this is the route through which they can obtain legitimacy for Caliphate. Caliphate to them is not a divine appointment. After all this dispute and argument, they do not bind themselves to any particular method because they think they have established legitimacy to it. They argue:

“The nature and characteristic of system of chosen Imamate and Caliphate lose importance of its means when the government is established.

Revision-seekers think consultation and Bay’at to be the only means to frame Imamate and Wilayat.

The above perverted outlook is a reason why revision-seekers exert their efforts to find ways and means to carry out Bay’at and consultation towards establishment of government. To set aside the difficulties and setbacks that hinder execution of this design they should borrow the services of those who tie and untie as is the system in Sunni Sect.

It is neither practicable nor possible for each individual of the Ummah to participate in choosing an Imam. The revision-seekers cannot conceal every age and every occasion in history.

The situation of some endeavors is as follows:

The First Stage

“It is natural that all individuals can participate directly in the first stage and choose a ruler for their society, which is most necessary and important. Or to seek their opinion individually too is not possible.

What is possible and practicable is that a few among the Ummah choose a person. Masses too agree with the choice. Then the masses do Bay’at with him. So a government is formed.”!83

“Between consultation and Bay’at, there is a difference in meaning. Imam and administrator of Islamic society must be a reputed person in addition to his being popular and most popular among majority of people. Bay’at does not mean that all people know the candidate. Consultation has a direct bearing on those who distinguish the people.”84

“In the system of consultation the experts, the scholars and persons in charge, who themselves are representatives and confederates of people; choose a man having ability and competency for the job. They select him for Guardianship (Wilayat Amr) of society. Then the masses (in case of acceptance) do Bay’at with him. This is the same system of majority. This system through two stages provides popularity and legitimacy to the Islamic government.”!85

The Second Stage

“Some have stressed that those who tie and untie should fix a head of the government of Muslims. This right does not apply to all Muslims. Here this much could be debated. First, if the body of those who tie and untie is chosen by Muslims masses then all people share in political matters. The only difference is that the ruler is appointed in two stages instead of one.

Secondly, the appointment of the ruler by those who tie and untie is an ephemeral job not a permanent one. As there is no way for presence of masses to choose a ruler the persons who tie and untie should give importance to this job. This is applied only when it is not possible to collect popular opinion.”!86

Perverted Repercussions Of This Conjecture On The Subject Of Alawi Government

First Wrong Result

The sense of Bay’at is changed into a vote of confidence and legitimacy to one with whom Bay’at is done.

Thus it is said:

“Bay’at is in the sense of opinion of trust, selection and formalization of someone as a leader to whom Bay’at has been given.”87

It can be said:

Such a sense originated from a wrong outlook that Bay’at is the source of legitimacy and legality of Imamate and Wilayat.

As a result:

The text of Quran and Bay’at become parallel to each other. They become two pillars of equal worth and importance. Both have a part in exercising the right of Imam Ali (‘a).

So they say:

“One chosen by people has a right to govern them.”88

Second Wrong Result

When Bay’at is changed to a vote of confidence and a choosing right, and becomes equal to Verse of Quran in forming a right to frame the Alawi government, the sense of the verse of Ghadeer too is changed from Divine support to that of priority of Ali towards forming a government.

As a result:

In addition to this Imamate is set outside the boundary of Divine appointment. It becomes a sort of a chosen post. Imam Ali (‘a) too becomes the most befitting person whom God chooses to this job. They also say:

“Although after passing away of Prophet, Muslims had the right to frame a consulting committee to appoint a Caliph but it was better to act on the will of the Prophet also about the consulting committee. Was Shura formed according to God’s command more befitting and suitable than the Prophet? The will is a finishing touch to the consulting body and the completing element to it.”89

“When the Prophet has cleared a matter or recommended a thing the job of consulting body becomes simple and easy. The Prophet had wanted to lay the religion on a foundation that it could exist and last to the last day of the world. So the Prophet introduced to Muslims a man most prefect, most brave, must knowledgeable and consummate one in every tribute and in each aspect. He was Ali. The Prophet presented him to the Ummah as a model to be his successor. The Prophet even reminded to Ummah a few of Ali’s virtues and qualities.

Finally, at Ghadeer he finished the job. He raised Ali on his hands and declared him as the Imam and Caliph and his successor after him.”90

Third Wrong Result

When Bay’at changes to the meaning of a vote of confidence and goes parallel to the Holy text of Quran and helps in creating a right to govern in Alawi manner, the sense of legitimacy also gets changed. It becomes the eligibility of a ruler which rests with the people to decide.91

So it is said:

“A leader or ruler in Islam should have legitimacy as well as acceptance. His legitimacy is judged on the standards of a serious school.”92

“Caliphate is a common right of all. It should be vested on the basis of consultation to a competent person.”93

“God’s and Islam’s command is to choose a more suitable man for Imamate, Wilayat and government. People must choose as a leader one who is more suitable than all and has moral values.”94

Reminder: Explaining The Position Of Bay’at In The System Of Divinely Appointed Imamate

“Bay’at neither has a religious aspect nor worth in the matter of Wilayat, obedience and holy war. It cannot be a source of legitimacy. According to this theory, the value of Bay’at goes as far as to oblige a Bay’at doer to obey the ruler whose Guardianship is laid upon Muslims. The obedience too goes as far as Divine commands go, and no further.

According to this theory Bay’at does not constitute any superiority or Guardianship of others. According to my belief, this is the highest angle of jurisprudence in this respect.

The Prophet enjoined the people at four stations to do Bay’at with him. First at Aqaba One, then Aqaba Two, third at the Bay’at of Rizwan and fourth on Ghadeer Day.

The first Bay’at was an invitation. The second and the last one for his governorship and successorship and the third for holy war. According to this, three kinds of Bayyats took place in the time of the Prophet. In these Bayyats, there is no jurisprudential decree to make it incumbent. But reason makes it incumbent to pay allegiance because it is demanded by the Prophet.

Obedience to Prophet is incumbent in peace and war. It is a religious duty.

The issue of Bay’at in Imamate and Wilayat has no jurisprudence value. It does not give legitimacy. It is only a connection and link between Ummah and its leader. It strengthens ties between the two.”95

End: Caution of Wilayat and warning of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) about the beginning of deviation in belief of Imamate

We close this chapter by referring to two points in the speech of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.):

When a group of supporters of falsehood, in order to conceal the truth and justify their usurpation, instigated a generation to head towards the fire of hell, Siddiqa Tahira (Zahra) said regarding this perversion:

“What a surprise! Have you forgotten the Day of Ghadeer Khumm?”96

In the same way, Her Eminence (s.a.) in reply to justifications of the betrayers of trust said:

“Did my father leave an excuse for anyone on Ghadeer Day?”97

- 1. Ibn Khaldun: Muqaddimah, Pg. 196.

- 2. Ibid. Muqaddimah, Pg. 191.

- 3. According to Sunnis the need of Imam is due to the need of having a government in order to remove chaos from the society.

- 4. Taftazani: Sharh Maqasid, Part 5, Pg. 233.

- 5. Ibid. Sharh Maqasid, Part 5, Pg. 236.

- 6. Baqilani: At-Tamheed, Pg. 181.

- 7. Ibn Taimmiyah: Minhaj as-Sunnah, Vol. 1, Pg. 141.

- 8. From this aspect in the system of thoughts of Ahlul Sunnat the legitimacy of Caliphate is based on selection of the Ummah and the one who is selected by the Ummah also becomes the divinely selected one.

- 9. Ibn Khaldun: Muqaddimah, Pg. 196.

- 10. This claim of Sunnis is opposed to the Shia belief in divine Imamate.

- 11. Shahristani: Al-Milal wan Nihal, Vol. 1, Pg. 144.

- 12. The real founders of the view of ‘Elected Caliphate’ are Ahlul Sunnat.

- 13. The meaning of selection of Ummah is insistence on this claim only.

- 14. That is the post of Imamate is limited to rulership and administration of society.

- 15. That is the Almighty Allah does not specify the holders of these posts.

- 16. According to Ahlul Sunnat during the period of the Caliphs the explanation of Islamic law was on the Caliphs to some extent but it was not restricted to them only.

- 17. It can be said that Sunni sect insists upon Ummah’s choice even to the extent of denying existence of Divine text (Nass) in this respect. Since Divine verse exists in case of Ali and which was read by the Prophet on the occasion of Ghadeer they are obliged to deny it or to take refuge in a misrepresentation of it.

- 18. Selected Caliphate means that which the Ummah is obliged to establish.

- 19. From the point of view of Ahlul Sunnat the right of rulership is for one who is capable of domination..

- 20. According to Ahlul Sunnat the pivot of Imamate is power.

- 21. Ibn Taimmiyah: Minhaj as-Sunnah, Vol. 1, Pg. 141.

- 22. Ahlul Sunnat believe that the legitimacy of occurrence of Caliphate is obtained by having power and domination.

- 23. From the point of view of Ahlul Sunnat the basic condition of Caliphate is that a person should obtain domination over the people so that there is no chaos and general benefits of the Ummah are secured.

- 24. Ibn Taimmiyah: Minhaj as-Sunnah, Vol. 1, Pg. 141.

- 25. From the point of view of Ahlul Sunnat obeying the Caliph only becomes incumbent when he has established his domination.

- 26. Regarding ‘Those who tie and untie’ we should explain that there is no specific or precise description about this term. To explain this we can say it pertains to persons who are brokers of power. They perform the task of creating caliphs, (king-makers). They have influence in society and steer the course of thought in it. They have agents and sub-agents. They know how to elevate the desired one into public opinion and how to bring down one in public estimation. So they are called ‘who tie and untie’ which means they tie one from that job.

- 27. According to Qadi Abdul Jabbar if a Caliph is chosen others are absolved from the responsibility of society.

- 28. Qadi Abdul Jabbar: Al-Mughni fil Abwaab at-Tauheed wal-Adl, Pg. 303.

- 29. In Sunni Sect Caliphate has no fixed ground, a standard, or a principle. The Caliphate and Imamate is 2 based on verbal terms only.

- 30. That is a government that the Ummah is obliged to form.

- 31. There is no fixed standard for appointing a person as Imam.

- 32. Juwaini: Al-Irshad Ila Qawaata al-Adalla fee Usool al-Itiqaad, Pg. 424.

- 33. Qadi Abdul Jabbar: Al-Mughni fil Abwaab at-Tauheed wal-Adl, Pg. 303.

- 34. Taftazani: Sharh Maqasid, Part 5, Pg. 233.

- 35. Abu Yaala: Al-Ahkaam as-Sultaaniyah, Pg. 23.

- 36. Qalaqshandi: Maatharul Anaaqa fee Maalimul Khilafah, Vol. 1, Pg. 58.

- 37. Juwaini: Al-Irshad Ila Qawaata al-Adalla fee Usool al-Itiqaad, Pg. 424.

- 38. Taftazani: Sharh Maqasid, Part 5, Pg. 233.

- 39. Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim, Vol. 12, Pg. 229.

- 40. Ahlul Sunnat believe that for security of a Caliph’s regime any law can be cancelled.

- 41. Baqilani: At-Tamheed, Pg. 181.

- 42. Ahlul Sunnat scholastic theologians have included this discussion in Ilme Kalaam only to refute the Shias.

- 43. Eji: Al-Mawaafiq, Part 8, Pg. 344.

- 44. Eji: Al-Mawaafiq, Part 8, Pg. 344.

- 45. Taftazani: Sharh Maqasid, Part 5, Pgs. 232-233.

- 46. Ghazzali: Al-Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad, Pg. 234.

- 47. He on the basis of this view says:
“There is more hope in salvation of one who ignores the discussion of Imamate than one who participates in it.”
(Amidi: Ghayatul Maraam, Pg. 363)

- 48. In the environment of Sunni thought there is no sense to know the Imam. The tradition is distorted in Sunni books. “One who does not knows his Imam dies a pagan’s death. This tradition is distorted like this: one who does not do Bayyat… or/and one who does not obey…the inserted words change the sense quite differently. The aim of the tradition too gets changed.

- 49. Refer: Rasool Ja’faryan: Jaryaanha wa Saazmaanhai Mazhabi – Siyasi Iran, Pgs. 350-377.

- 50. This enchantment has put a big question mark over their originality and sincerity.

- 51. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 52.

- 52. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 51.

- 53. Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 101.

- 54. Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 101.

- 55. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Hukumat-e-Deeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pg. 1-2.

- 56. Ibid. Hukumat-e-Deeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pg. 2.

- 57. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 75.

- 58. Refer to introduction of Ibn Khaldun and Abul Hasan Ashari.

- 59. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 129.

- 60. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 128.

- 61. Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 38.

- 62. Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 290.

- 63. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Article quoted in the book Deen-O-Hukumat (Religion and Rulership), Pg. 574.

- 64. Husayn Ali Montazeri: Mubaani-e-Fiqhi Hukumat-e-Islami (Translated by Mahmood Salawati) (Sources of Islamic jurisprudence in Islamic Government), Vol. 2, Section 4. Proof of the wrong of the caliphate elected by people, Pg. 299.

- 65. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pgs. 68-69.

- 66. Ibid. Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 200.

- 67. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 69.

- 68. The system of thoughts of Ahlul Sunnat is the real founder of the view of ‘Elected Caliphate’.

- 69. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 135.

- 70. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 136.

- 71. Sayyid Asadullah Meer Islami Kharqani: Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 42.

- 72. Ibid. Raah-e-Tajdeed-e-Azmat O Qudrat-e-Islami (Way to renovate the glory and power of Islam) (Preface by Sayyid Mahmood Taliqani), Pg. 101.

- 73. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 121.

- 74. Ibid. Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 111.

- 75. Husayn Ali Montazeri: Mubaani-e-Fiqhi Hukumat-e-Islami (Translated by Mahmood Salawati) (Sources of Islamic jurisprudence in Islamic Government), Vol. 2, Pgs. 190-191.

- 76. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 18.

- 77. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Hukumat-e-Deeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pg. 5.

- 78. Muhammad Jawad Hujjati Kermani: Guzarish Daily, Issue no. 99, Pg. 15.

- 79. Abdul Kareem Bi-Aazaar Shirazi: Seemai Imam-e-Muttaqeen, (Portrait of the Imam of the Pious), Vol. 7, Pg. 18.

- 80. Muhammad Waizzaada Khorasani: Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5 Pg. 172.

- 81. Ibid. Nahjul Balagha Magazine, Issue No. 4-5 Pg. 171.

- 82. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 98.

- 83. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 135.

- 84. Ibid. Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 141.

- 85. Ibid. Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 19.

- 86. Mustafa Husayni Tabatabai: Hukumat-e-Deeni O Hukumat-e-Mardumi (Government of religion and Government of people), Pgs. 6-7.

- 87. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 67.

- 88. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 200.

- 89. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pgs. 82-83.

- 90. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 123.

- 91. In this system of thoughts the main power lies in the Shura, Nass only makes the matter easy

- 92. Abdul Ali Bazargan: Shura-O-Bayat (Consultation and Allegiance), Pg. 98.

- 93. Haider Ali Qalamdaran: Hukoomat Dar Islam (Government in Islam), Vol. 1, Pg. 162.

- 94. Nimatullah Salihi Najafabadi: Hukumat-e-Salihaan (Government of the Righteous), Pg. 77.

- 95. Ustad Muhammad Mahdi Asifi: Waashze Maandgaaraan (Translated by Hasan Shanechi), Pgs. 85-86; Ibid. Mudkhil Ilaa Daraasata Nassul Ghadeer, Pgs. 72-73.

- 96. Muhammad Baqir Ansari: Chaharda Qarn Ba Ghadeer (Fourteen Centuries with Ghadeer) Pg. 36; quoting from: Majlisi: Biharul Anwar, Vol. 36, Pg. 353.

- 97. Ibid. Pg. 37; quoting from Sadooq: Khisaal, Pg. 173.

Topic Tags:

- Saqifah [7]

- Early Islamic History [8]

Author(s):

- Ali Labbaf [1]

Translator(s):

- Syed Ibn Hasan Najafi [6]

Publisher(s):

- Ansariyan Publications - Qum [2]

Source URL: https://www.al-islam.org/victim-lost-saqifah-revised-edition-comprehensive-additions-ali-labbaf

Links
[1] https://www.al-islam.org/person/ali-labbaf
[2] https://www.al-islam.org/organization/ansariyan-publications-qum
[3] https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/91718
[4] https://www.al-islam.org/printepub/book/export/html/91718
[5] https://www.al-islam.org/printmobi/book/export/html/91718
[6] https://www.al-islam.org/person/allama-syed-ibn-hasan-najafi
[7] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/saqifah
[8] https://www.al-islam.org/tags/early-islamic-history