In this chapter we will first discuss our key observations of the lessons derived from the Saqifa meeting. We will thereafter cite the replies of Ibn al Hashimi followed by our respective replies thereto.
The true proponents of a hereditary system of succession are the Ahl’ul Sunnah themselves. Hardhat Abu Bakr did not suggest that votes be cast amongst the attendants he argued that entitlement was based on Quraysh lineage it was their exclusive hereditary entitlement. The issue advanced by Hardhat Abu Bakr has resulted in the leading scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah embracing this as part of their faith, i.e. the Khalifa can only be someone of Quraysh descent. In his discussion that the khilafat is reserved for the Quraysh, Ibn Khaldun points to the discussion at Saqifa to support his hypothesis:
“The condition of Qurashite origin is based upon the general consensus on this point that obtained in the men around Muhammad on the day of the Saqifah. On that day the Ansar intended to render the oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. They said “One amir from among us, and another from among you”. But the Qurashites argued against them with Muhammad’s statement, “The imams are from the Quraish”.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Nonsense. The Ahlus Sunnah does not advocate a hereditary system at all, but rather we believe that anybody–regardless of lineage–can be the Caliph. This constrasts dramatically with the position of the Shia who say that the leader must be descended from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنه) . The Ahlus Sunnah looks at the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as being the ideal model for Islamic governance, and none of the first four Caliphs advocated a hereditary system. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) expressely stated to the people:
“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)
Some people asked Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to appoint his son as his successor but Umar (رضّى الله عنه) refused to do that as he wanted no part in a hereditary system. In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) expressely forbade his son, Abdullah bin Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , from being a candidate for the Caliphate. We read:
Someone said (to Umar): “I can point to someone (to be Caliph): Abdullah ibn Umar.” But Umar replied: “…I have not found (the Caliphate) so praiseworthy that I should covet it for my own family…it is enough for the family of Umar that (only) one of them should be called to account and held responsible for what happened to Muhammad’s community. I have striven and have kept my own family out.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)
And Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“Abdullah ibn Umar will be there as adviser, but he shall have nothing to do with the matter (i.e. of being Caliph)”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.146-147)
And this is the model of the Ahlus Sunnah. Admittedly, the Muslims deviated after that, but it is unfair to say that this is what the Ahlus Sunnah advocates.
As for the opinion of Ibn Khaldun,
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
This was the position of Ibn Khaldun that the leadership must remain within the Quraishites forever. However, this is an incorrect position. In the same treatise, Ibn Khaldun states the opinion of Shaikh al-Sunnah:
Among those who deny that Qurashite descent is a condition (of the imamate) is Judge Abu Bakr al-Baqillani.
(Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, Ch.3)
We should now discuss who Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (i.e. Shaikh al-Sunnah) was. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah referred to Imam al-Baqillani as “the best of the Ashari Mutakallimoon, un-rivalled by any predecessor or successor.” Ibn Ammar al-Mayurqi said Imam al-Baqillani “was a righteous and scrupulous Maliki, one of those for whom absolutely no error is recorded and no defect was ascribed. He was called ‘the Shaikh of the Sunnah and the Tongue of the Community’…He was one of the fortresses of the Muslims and the people of innovations never experienced greater joy than their joy at his death.” Abu Imran al-Fasi said about Imam al-Baqillani: “He was the master of the people of the Sunnah in his time and the Imam of the mutakallimun of the people of truth in his time.” Abu Bakr al-Khatib said about Imam al-Baqillani: “He was the person with the most knowledge of Kalam and the best of them in thought in it.”
In other words, there is no comparison between al-Baqillani and Ibn Khaldun. The opinion of al-Baqillani over-rules. Imam al-Baqillani said that the Caliph need not be Quraishite; instead, the leader must simply be from the majority group. This view finds support in the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen who also said that the leader must be from the majority.
At the time of Abu Bakr’s nomination, the Quraishites were in the majority, and therefore, they had the right to the leadership. However, if at another time a different group becomes the majority, then that group deserves the leadership. The majority group deserves the leadership, so long as it does not stray from the Quran and Sunnah. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).
Pure nonsense on the part of Ibn al Hashimi has intentionally sort to suppress the fact that his school deems Caliphate to be the exclusive right of the Quraish
Ibn al Hashimi’s suggesting that the Hadith was merely temporal beggar’s belief and flies against what his beloved scholars have opined Ibn Taymiyya in ‘Minhajj al Sunnah’ Volume 1 page 271 asserts:
كون الخلافة في قريش فلما كان هذا من شرعه ودينه كانت النصوص بذلك معروفة منقولة مأثورة يذكرها الصحابة بخلاف
“The caliphate should remain specific to the Quraysh because this is a part of the Shariah and Deen of Allah therefore the texts about this is renowned and narrated by the companions without any disagreement”.
Minhajj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 271
Now tell us wise Ibn al Hashimi you have relied on the position of Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani to deduce that anyone can be a Khalifa, citing Ibn Taymiyya’s appraisal of him, why then is it your own Shaykh ul Islam did not concur with this position?
Another darling Imam of Salafies Ibn Qayim states in Hadi al-Arwah, page 289:
و الخلافة في قريش ما بقي من الناس اثنان و ليس لأحد من الناس أن ينازعهم فيها و لا نخرج عليهم و لا نقر لغيرهم بها إلى قيام الساعة
“Caliphate should remain in Quraish even if there remain only two people and no one among the people has the right to dispute them about it nor rebel against them nor recognize anyone for it other than them till the hour establishes.”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini records the statement of Imam Ibn Jawzi in Umadatul Qari, Volume 5 page 228:
قال ابن الجوزي : ….فإن الخلافة في قريش لا مدخل فيها لغيرهم
Ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘…Khilafa should remain in Quraish and there is no way for other than them’.
Imam Munwawi records in Faidh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 687:
خليفة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من بعده إنما يكون منهم فلا يجوز نصبه من غيرهم
“Verily, after Him (s), the Khalifa of Allah’s Messenger [s] is from them (Quraish) and it is not permissible to appoint someone who is not from them.”
In the eyes of the Wahabies “The sources for the creed (‘aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of his Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors” 1. In addition to this, the four Ahl’ul Sunna Imams have added the principle of Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Curiously the debate at Saqifa was devoid of all four principles, why is that? We believe that everything is contained with Allah (swt)’s book. As it was Hadhrath Umar himself who had said just days earlier “the Qur’an is sufficient for us” then why did he not plead to the parties to turn to the Book of Allah (swt) and reach a conclusion in light of Allah (swt)’s commands?
The Sunnah was also not used or suggested, comments on tribal superiority were given precedence, nothing else. Ijma (consensus of the companions) a pivotal part if Islamic jurisprudence in the eyes of the Ahl’ul Sunnah was not even entertained. Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar did not seek the counsel of the other companions as to whether / or not they should proceed to the Saqifa and discuss the issue of succession. Why did these two prominent companions take it upon themselves to go to the Saqifa? Why did they ignore the principle of ijma?
”
Ibn al Hashimi argues
Nonsense. The primary argument that won the day was Abu Bakr’s reminder of a Prophetic Hadith. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“O Saad (ibn Ubaadah)! You know very well that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arab (masses) follow their (Quraish) nobles and their ignobles follow their (Quraish) ignobles.”
(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p.5)
Furthermore, the Ansars and Muhajirs were making use of Shura which is mentioned in the Quran as the way the believers manage their affairs.
We have already addressed the Shura argument elsewhere. As for this Quraish argument, if this was a general right why is that the Ansar were only allowed to choose from the three men at Saqifa and not the Quraish as a whole?
As for Shura there was no basis for it when Imam Ali (as) had already been appointed directly by Allah (swt) via Rasulullah (s), and as Allah (swt) states in his Glorious Book:
It is not befitting for a believing man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision. (Surah Ahzab 33:36)
Ibn al Hashim states:
It is at times like this that we wonder at the Shia diatribes which are devoid of facts and based solely upon lies. Who said there was no Shura or Ijma with the nomination of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) ? The Shura most definitely took place, between the vast majority of the Ansars and the three Muhajirs. The Majlis-e-Shura need not consist of more than a handful of representatives, and therefore the requirement for Shura was fulfilled. It is not only un-necessary that every single person is present at the Shura, but rather it is discouraged for the fact that such a Majlis would become unwieldly and difficult to manage: after all, how could over thirty thousand Sahabah hold deliberations? The Shura was conducted with those present at Saqifah but it was binding on those not present. For proof of this, we turn to the Shia’s own Nahjul Balagha in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allegedly said:
“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 (limited franchise or selection) 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. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.”
(Nahjul Balagha, Letter 6, Al-Islam.org,
http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm#letter6)As for Ijma (consensus), that definitely took place as well. The very next day after Saqifah, thirty-three thousand Sahabah took their Baya’ah at the hand of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) .
As for Shura, the simplest way to negate this claim if Umar’s comments from Sahih Bukhari as cited earlier:
“Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed”
Umar was stating that if the methods used to get Abu Bakr to power were repeated again, then the punishment would be death, why, because no shura had taken place. Now who has a batter understanding of the facts on the ground Umar or Ibn al Hashimi? If that Shura was valid then why was Umar saying that it was not, and if repeated would attract capital punishment? If Shura had indeed been exercised there have been no need for such a penalty/ Ibn al Hashimi might insist that the meeting’s quorum was satisfied to meet the test of Shura but his own client Umar did not agree with this, so whose view should we accept his or Umar’s? As for the suggestion that Imam Ali (as) was espousing that shura had taken place with his predecessors, quoting every Nasabi’s favorite sermon, it has nothing to do with what Imam Ali (as) believed, this was a polemical letter refuting Muawiya who believed the first three Caliphs were appointed by Shura. Ibn al Hashimi is of course fully aware of this, as we already refuted his interpretation of the sermon in our article “How to respond to Sunni brothers”.
As for this Nasibi’s false reading of the Nahjul Balagha narration, we have already refuted his take on it on our article “How to respond to Sunni brothers”, our readers are invited to consult that.
As for ijmaa we are referring to Saqifa wherein there was no ijma, what happened after is not what we were asking.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Has the author of Answering-Ansar’s article never opened up a history book in his life? Every credible sources proves that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) consulted the prominent Sahabah before finalizing his nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:
At the beginning of Jumada al-Ukhra (13 AH), Abu Bakr caught a fever and its intensity continued unabated for a fortnight. When he grew sure of his last hours drawing near, he sent for Abdur Rahman bin Awf and held consultation (Shura) with him regarding the Caliphate…following this, he called Uthman bin Affan and put the same question to him. He (Uthman) said in reply: “Umar’s internal self is better than his external one; he is superior to us all.” When Ali was consulted, he made almost the same answer. Then came Talhah…
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.312-313)
In another narration, we read:
When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death approached, he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Awf and said: “Tell me about Umar ibn Khattab.” Abdur Rahman replied: “You are asking me about something of which you know better…By Allah, he is even better than the opinion you hold about him.” Then he (Abu Bakr) called Uthman bin Affan and asked him: “Tell me about Umar Ibn Khattab.” Uthman replied: “You know him better than us.” Abu Bakr said: “Still, O Abu Abdullah!” Uthman answered: “Indeed, in my opinion, his inner self is better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him.”
(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)
Ibn Saad mentions that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then consulted all the prominent leaders of the Ansars and Muhajirs. We read:
And he (Abu Bakr), besides these two, consulted Abu al-Awar (Saeed ibn Zayd) and Usayd ibn Al-Hudayr–as well as other big leaders of the Ansar and the Muhajirun–so Usayd said: “Indeed, after you O Abu Bakr, I consider him (Umar) the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Caliphate.”
(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.199)
During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) who raised any objections to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , but then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (رضّى الله عنه) and Talhah (رضّى الله عنه) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , they both favored Umar (رضّى الله عنه) .
Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (رضّى الله عنه) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) secured the “consent of the governed”. We read:
…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:
“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?”
Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.”
Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)
We read:
Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure while Asba b. Umays was steadying him with tattoed hands. He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:
(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?
The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.
(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)
So we can see that the matter is not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all install Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as a tyrant over the people. Rather, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) gave his suggestion as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , and he first passed it through the people, asking them if they accepted him as their Caliph. From this behavior, we can clearly see how truly important it is for the Ahlus Sunnah that the “consent of the governed” is attained; even the most powerful man from amongst the Muslims had to obtain the permission of the masses in order to appoint his successor. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –the Caliph of an emerging super-power–had the modesty and decency to have his own will “proof-read” by the people. The principles of popular sovereignity and self-determination were therefore upheld.
We have already addressed this in a previous chapter, so there is no need to repeat it all again here. Still two references we had not used previously should suffice to negate the above weak references:
Firstly we have Umar’s testimony when he responded to pressure to appoint a Khalifa:
If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.)
Sahih Muslim Kitab al Amara Book 020, Number 4485
So how did Abu Bakr appoint Umar? It dates back to when he was issuing instructions on his death bed:
عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: كان عثمان يكتب وصية أبي بكر فأغمي على أبي بكر فجعل عثمان يكتب فكتب عمر، فلما أفاق قال: ما كتبت ؟ قال: كتبت عمر. قال كتبت الذي أردت أن آمرك به ولو كتبت نفسك لكنت لها أهلا.
Ayseha (ra) said: ‘Uthman was writing the will of Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr fainted, thus Uthman wrote the name of Umar. When Abu Bakr woke up and asked: ‘Waht you have written?’ He (Uthman) replied: ‘I wrote ‘Umar’’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘you wrote the thing which I wanted to tell, even if you wrote your own name instead it, you would be suitable for it’’.
Tarikh al-Madina, Volume 2 page 667
Uthman wrote down Umar;’s name and Abu Bakr conformed it, where is the Shura in that?
Both Parties put forward how they had aided the Prophet (saaws). The Muhajireen consisted of these three prominent Sahaba. We find in books of hadith that all three have many hadith in their praise. What better way to convince the other side would there have been than to advance the Prophet (saaws)’s own praises of them. This would have been the final word on the matter. There would have been no doubting the words of the Prophet (saaws) a hadith of superiority would have brought the dispute to a close.”
Ibn al Hashimi states
Neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Umar (رضّى الله عنه) went to Saqifah in order to obtain the Caliphate. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
And Umar (رضّى الله عنه) then repudiated the Caliphate, saying he was unworthy of it in front of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . Then he very much did mention the qualities of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:
Umar said: “No! Abu Bakr is the most excellent amongst the Muhajirs. He has been the Companion of the Prophet in the cave [as mentioned in the Quran]; the Prophet asked him to be the Imam to lead the prayers, and prayer is the most superior of all other articles of faith. Therefore, none (not I nor Abu Ubaidah) is entitled to assume the duties of the Caliphate in the presence of Abu Bakr.”
Saying this, Umar stretched his hand first of all to take Baya’ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of Abu Bakr Siddiq followed by Abu Ubaidah and Bashir ibn Saad Ansari. After that, the people of all sides of Abu Bakr came to take Baya’ah. As the news spread, all the believers rushed to pledge their allegiance to the Caliph.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.275)
There was no need to mention any more of the qualities of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as the people already rushed to pledge allegiance upon what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentioned; the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was nominated as Imam of the prayers during the Prophet’s sickness was actually the strongest proof for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , and this was therefore mentioned by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Had the people still not been convinced, then perhaps Umar (رضّى الله عنه) might have mentioned more of Abu Bakr’s many qualities and honors. Yet, this is a non-issue because the others were won over with the simple argument that it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was nominated by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to be the substitute Imam of the prayers.
The Shaikhain went with the sole intention of attaining power whether that was Abu Bakr, Umar or Abu Ubaydah that was irrelevant as long as it was on of the three their job was done. We have previously discussed the fact that as per the beliefs of Ahl’ul Sunnah leading Salat has no significance whatsoever, you can read behind a good or bad person, so such an argument cannot be advanced as a claim to Caliphate. Simply accompany Rasulullah (s) in the cave again does not point Abu Bakr being the true Khalifa of Rasulullah (s), all that points to is his accompanying Rasulullah (s) therein and being frightened, what sort of excellence is that?
At two points the name Ali was mentioned by the Ansar. A man from the Ansar amidst the debate acknowledges that if Ali (as) was to enter the debate all pledge their allegiance to him. Why would he say such a thing, unless the khilafat was Ali (as)’s exclusive right?
If Ali (as) was tending to the funeral rites and the Ansar were of the opinion that Hadhrath Ali (as) had a right in this matter, then why did Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar offer to invite him to the meeting?
Ibn al Hashimi states:
We have already discussed this before, in our Response to Chapter 2. In the first narration cited by Answering-Ansar, the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) does not appear but rather the words “Ali” were added in brackets by the Shia translator, Mr. Ismail Poonawalla. As for the second narration, it is inauthentic and narrated by a liar and shameless forger, namely Ibn Humayd.
Elsewhere Ibn al Hashimi argues:
Actually, the more appropriate question is: if these Ansars actually held the opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger, then why would these Ansars have been the ones to rush to appoint Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) ? If the Ansars had felt that it was Ali’s exclusive right, then they would not have accepted Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph nor would they have accepted Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) ! Therefore, we conclude that it could not have been the majority of Ansars who felt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was fit for Caliphate, but rather at most it could only be a handful of them who felt that way.
The Ansar were alluding to one person from the Quraish who they could not oppose if he staked his claim to leadership, so who was it? It was not these three so who was it? It could only have been Ali (as) since it was Ali (as) that had been formally appointed as the successor of Rasulullah (s) at Ghadir Khumm. The Ansar were of course amongst those present, a reality they even attested to before Imam Ali (as) during his reign, as recorded in Musnad Ahmad, Volume 38 page 541:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَنَشُ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ لَقِيطٍ النَّخَعِيُّ الْأَشْجَعِيُّ، عَنْ رِيَاحِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، قَالَ: جَاءَ رَهْطٌ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ بالرَّحْبَةِ فَقَالُوا:السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ يَا مَوْلَانَا قَالَ: كَيْفَ أَكُونُ مَوْلَاكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَرَبٌ؟ قَالُوا: سَمِعْنَا رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ غَدِيرِ خُمٍّ يَقُولُ: ” مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ، فَإِنَّ هَذَا مَوْلَاهُ ” قَالَ رِيَاحٌ:فَلَمَّا مَضَوْا تَبِعْتُهُمْ، فَسَأَلْتُ مَنْ هَؤُلَاءِ؟ قَالُوا: نَفَرٌ مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ فِيهِمْ أَبُو أَيُّوبَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ
Rabah bin al-Harith said: ‘A group of men passed by Ali in Rahba and they said: ‘Peace be upon you our master (Maula). ‘He (Ali) said: how can I be your master (Maula) and you are Arab?’ They replied: ‘We heard Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) state on the day of Ghadir: ‘Of whomsoever I am his master (Maula) then this (Ali) is his master (Maula)’.
Rabah said: ‘When they left, I followed them and asked (people): ‘Who are they?’ They answered: ‘They are group from Ansar and Abu Ayub al-Ansari is among them”.
Shu’aib al-Arnaoot said: ‘The chain is Sahih’
This tradition completely destroys the absurd claim that Mawla mean at Ghadir, if it does was Imam Ali (as) asking the Ansar why they deemed him their ‘friend’ when they were Arabs? Clearly it was different, Maula here clearly denotes authority, which is why the Imam (as) sought to ascertain from the Ansar why they had addressed him in a manner that made them subservient to him, on account of his authority over them, when they were Arab (as in free men). It was to this that they affirmed this authority over them had been established at Ghadir Khumm.
As for why they had gathered to appoint Saad, we have discussed previously the Ansar had fully realized from the confrontation between Harith bin Numan and Rasulullah (s) following his appointing Ali (as) at Ghadir, The Shaikhain’s stalling when they had been ordered to partake in the expedition under Usamah and Umar’s successful efforts to prevent Rasulullah (s) from writing his will that moves were afoot to remove Ali (as) from the equation. They had therefore gathered to decide on how best they coup protect their interests, for them the solution lay in pointing a leader to counter the machinations of those seeking to oust Ali (as). They reacted on account of a fear of the unknown. Since the reality had dawned on them that a coup was being planned, there was no logic behind calling a man that the Muhajir were seeking to remove from the equation. This is no way means that they denied the appointment at Ghadir, in the same way that they testified to the appointment before Ali (as) decades later, they were not denying it now when it was fresh in their minds, which is why during the discussions with the three muhajirin the Ansar Sahabi Mundhir b. al-Aqram stood up saying:
‘We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]‘.
Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation by Ismail Poonawalla p 193 – 194
This (Ali) was clearly a name the Ansar were happy with, he was mentioned so why not offer to suspend the proceedings and make him as the Khalifa, this would have been okay to the Ansar. Why the insistence to continue debating the matter when there existed a man from the Muhajireen who the Ansar had no opposition to?
Reply – The Ansar didn’t gave bayya to Ali (as) the fourth Khalifa
Ibn al Hashimi avers
Again, it was not a name that all or even most of the Ansars were happy with. At most, it was a name that only a handful of them were satisfied with. On the other hand, the great majority of them wanted Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. Furthermore, more of them were happy with the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) than that of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . As proof of this, we remind the Shia of what happened after Uthman’s death when the people nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. In fact, many of the prominent Ansars refused to give Baya’ah to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ! Such illustrious Ansars such as Ka’b bin Malik, Hasan bin Thabit, Maslamah bin Mukhallad, Abu Saeed al-Khudri, Muhammad bin Maslamah, al-Numan bin Bashir, Zaid bin Thabit, Rafi bin Khadij, Fadalah bin Ubaid, Ka’b bin Ujrah, and others. We read:
He (Ali) was not accepted as Caliph by all the citizens and especially (not) by all the (Ansarite) companions inMedina. Several Ansarite Companions, like Hassan bin Thabit, Kab bin Malik, Zayd bin Thabit, and Nu’man bin Bashir, did not pay homage to him. Similarly, several Quraishites also did not take the oath of allegiance at his hands. They were, to mention a few, Abdullah bin Amar, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, and others. The Umayyad clan, of course, paid no homage at all…the non-acceptance of so many Companions and citizens was itself a proof that there was no unanimity as there had been in the three elections before.
(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.329)
Answering-Ansar claims that if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had given the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) then this would have ended the matter and the Ansars would happily have accepted this name thereby ending the debate. What a preposterous argument that runs so contrary to the facts on the ground. Many prominent Ansars did not want Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph and many of them would refrain from giving their oath of allegiance to him after Uthman’s death. It is absolutely absurd to claim that this is a name that would have ended the debate, when in fact it was Ali’s nomination to Caliph after Uthman’s death which only augmented a debate into an all-out civil war.
Let us keep in mind that the three Muhajirs head off to Saqifah in order to prevent disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah. By nominating Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –a man whom 33,000 Sahabah agreed upon–Umar (رضّى الله عنه) managed to save the unity of the Muslim Ummah and prevent Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) –whom the vast majority of the Muslims (other than the Ansars) would not accept–from being elected. The fear was that if a less popular candidate was elected, this would create break away movements; to prevent this, a candidate needed to be chosen who had mass appeal, and this was only Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . The people were eventually reconciled with the nomination of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) based on the fact that he was the one chosen to lead the prayers.
We have already acknowledged that there was a minority group who supported Ali’s Caliphate, including Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) ; therefore, it is quite possible that a small minority of the Ansars were part of this group. However, the vast majority of the Ansars supported Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) and it is strange that Answering-Ansar would attempt to imply otherwise. Was it not the Ansars themselves who rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph?
A group of people supported the Caliphate of Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) , a group supported Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and it is likely that other groups favored other people. Do the Shia know of any modern day election in which one candidate wins 100% of the vote? Surely this is not possible. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was, however, a more popular candidate than the others and it is for this reason that he became Caliph. Thirty-three thousand Sahabah took Baya’ah at the hands of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , whereas only a handful supported Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . The Shia author, S.H.M. Jafri, has a difficult time naming even twelve Sahabah who supported Ali’s Caliphate.
We can see quite clearly that the supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were few and far in between. Two of Ali’s supporters, for example, were Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) , but the Shia think of them as apostates anyways. Would it then be justice for the Caliphate to go to the party in the minority as opposed to the will of the great majority? Surely not, and even Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself did not think so, because he eventually respected the Ijma of the community by taking Baya’ah at the hand of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as confirmed in Shia books (Al-Ihtejaj, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Nassikhut-Tawareekh, etc). Please see our main article on Saqifah for discussion of this.
Welcome to the world of politics wherein positions can shift overnight, if there was a viewpoint against Ali (as) some twenty two years after Ghadir Khumm, it in no way means the Ansar held that same view when the Prophet (s) died! What we are discussing is an opinion held by the Ansar following the death of Rasulullah (s) based on what they had witnessed take plac at Ghadir Khumm. How simplistic to suggest opinions remain the same in politics. Talha and Zubayr gave bayya to Ali following the death of Uthman and thereafter broke it and rebelled against him. Amr ibn Aas was a vocal opponent of Uthman during his lifetime and in fact encouraged people to shed his blood, yet when Ali (as) came to power the same Amr joined forces with Muawiyah to avenge the slain Uthman!
The upshot of all of the shenanigans at Saqifa by three Muhajirin was to replace the Khalifa of Allah with the Khalifa of Man. Whilst the Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars proudly declare that the appointment of Abu Bakr was a model reflection of democracy in motion, the reality could not be much further, and what more honest an observation of Umar. He made this confession during his own Khilafath. This is what we find in Tabari, Ibne Abbas narrates:
“While I was waiting in a station (manzil) in Mina, Abd-al Rahman bin Awf came to me saying came to me saying, “Today I saw a man who came to the Commander of the Faithful (i.e. Umar) and said I have heard so and so saying: If the Commander of the Faithful is dead I would give my oath of allegiance to so and so. The Commander of the Faithful said that he would get up among the people that evening and warn them against the group of the Faithful who want to usurp power”.
The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p191-192
Tabari then goes on to record the momentous speech given by Hadhrath Umar in a famous tradition:
“It has reached me that someone of you said ‘If the Commander of the Faithful is dead, I will give the oath of allegiance to so and so’. Let a man not deceive himself by saying that the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an event that happened without consultation (faltah). Admittedly it was so, but God averted it’s evil”.
The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p193
al Bukhari also records Hadhrath Umar’s sermon in similar wording, and this addition:
“I have been informed that a speaker among you says, By Allah if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such and such person’. One should not deceive oneself by saying that the Pledge of allegiance given to ‘Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of ‘Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed”.
Sahih al Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540
This speech itself nullifies any argument advanced by the majority school, i.e. that the coming to power of Abu Bakr was legitimate. There was no (shura) consultation, ijma the cornerstone of Sunni theology did not take place, Hadhrath Umar made it clear that it was ‘evil’ should the process be repeated again, the individuals concerned should be put to death. Whilst the majority school proclaim the legitimacy of Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr’s khilafath, Hadhrath Umar not only rejected the validity of Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr’s khilafath on the premise that no consultation had occurred, he was also negating his own khilafath for he was appointed by Hadhrath ‘Abu Bakr – without consulting the companions. It is a reflection of the dedication to the institution of the apparent Khilafath of man that turns otherwise rational men to forsake the testimony of history and their own analysis of the key players themselves and rather to present the appointment of Hadhrath Abu Bakr in such terms as ‘democratic’, or a representation of the opinion of the Muslim majority (ijma). It is, of course, a baseless opinion, but one propagated in the form of such unrelenting dogma that one must at least admire the loyalty of the espousers of the institution if not their misplaced devotions.
The reason for making this speech is what needs to be gleaned. Hadhrath Umar had heard that upon his death people would pledge allegiance to “so and so”. Who was this “so and so” that Hadhrath Umar was referring to, that was the cause of this speech.
Poonawalla in his translation of this edition of Tabari writes in footnote 1308 relating to Hadhrath Umar’s speech as follows:
“According to Baladhuri, Ansab I, 581, this was Zubayr, and the person whom he wanted to hail as caliph was ‘Ali. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, on the other hand reports that the person who said it, according to al-Jahiz, was Ammar b. Yasir or, according to ahl al hadith, Talha; but the person they wanted to hail as caliph was ‘Ali. It was thus Ali’s name that made ‘Umar disturbed and caused him to deliver a fiery speech”.
In these early days both Ammar bin Yasir and Zubayr were Shi’i.”
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) explicitly referred to himself not as the Caliph of Allah but rather as the Caliph of a man, namely the Messenger of Allah. Such was the modesty of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , who–even though he had just become the ruler of an emerging super-power–used such a modest title. This contrasts with those Shia leaders who use such flamboyent titles as Ayatollah (i.e. the Sign of God Himself). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“Call me not the Caliph of the Lord. I am but the Caliph of the Prophet of the Lord.”
(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.225)
We read:
Origin of the titles of “Khalifa”…When Abu Bakr was elected as the chief (of the Muslim Ummah), he gave orders that he should be known by the title of “Khalifa’t-ur-Rasul-Allah” i.e. the “substitute” or “successor” of the Prophet of God. This was a modest title, for it did not imply divine sovereignity…but it meant that he was merely to administer the affairs of the Muslim community after the departure of the Prophet. Later, when Umar succeeded Abu Bakr, he too assumed (the) equally modest title of “Khalifa’t Khalifa’t-ur-Rasul-Allah” i.e. the Caliph of the Caliph of the Prophet of God. Though an expressive term, it was clumsy and unwieldly…(it was) shortened…simply to “Khalifa”, or caliph, its anglicized form.
(A Short History of Islam, by Mazhar ul-Haq, p.364)
This still does not refute our stance, that Abu Bakr had ought to remove the divinely appointed Imam from his legitimate seat. If this Nasibi has an issue with the title Caliph of Allah (swt) is objectionable extremism, then allow us to cite this Sunni tradition quoted by Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri in his book “The Awaited Saviour” page 29 wherein Imam Mahdi (s) has been described as just that by Rasulullah (s):
Section 5 : Imām Mahdī (علیہ السلام) as Allāh’s Caliph
22. عن ثوبان رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: يقتتل عند كنزكم ثلاثة كلهم ابن خليفة، ثم لا يصير إلى واحد منهم، ثم تطلع الرايات السود من قبل المشرق، فيقتلونكم قتلا لم يقتله قوم.
ثم ذكر شيئا لا أحفظه، فقال: فإذا رأيتموه فبايعوه ولو حبوا على الثلج، فإنه خليفة الله المهدي.
“Thawbān (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allāh (صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم) said: Three persons will wage war near your treasure. All three will be sons of the caliph and yet this treasure will not be transferred to anyone of them. Then black flags will appear from the east and they will wage war on you with such intensity that no nation had waged war with such aggression before.
“(Thawbān (RA) says:) then the Messenger of Allāh (صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم) said something (which I could not remember.) Then the Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم) said: when you people see him, you should take the oath of allegiance on his hand even if you have to come dragging on snow. Indeed he will be the Caliph of Allāh, Mahdī.” [Ibn Majah narrated in as Sunan, b. of Fitan (turmoil’s) 4:453 (4084) with a sound chain of transmission and its men are trustworth]
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
When Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was on his deathbed, there were many people who considered nominating their own Caliph, as the Ansars had once rushed to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) . It was the Ansars who had forced the three Muhajirs to rush to Saqifah, and it was because of their over-aggressiveness on the matter that the oath of allegiance was hurriedly rendered lest the Ansars change their mind. Both Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had wished that the situation had been more ideal and that the rest of the Muhajirs be included in the Shura.
In order to rectify this problem, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ensured that all of the prominent figures be included in the Shura this time around. In this speech, he was simply saying that the Ansars were the ones who had erred by forcing the meeting at Saqifah and that Abu Bakr’s nomination was a spontaneous un-premeditated affair, or faltah. In other words, what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was saying here was that the Shaikhayn had not gone out to obtain the Caliphate intentionally and therefore they could not be blamed for not rounding up the rest of the Muhajirs. Had this been their intention (i.e. to steal the Caliphate), then of course this would have been wrong to exclude the Muhajirs. This is what Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was warning against in this speech, asking the people not to rush to elect their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims. He explained that people might think that this is what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did, but he says that in reality Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not go to Saqifah with this intention and that his election was a spontaneous and un-premeditated affair (i.e. faltah).
Ibn al Hashimi also argues
Nothing in Umar’s speech indicates that Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was illegitimate. It was the Ansars who had rushed the matter, and Allah had saved the Muslim Ummah from any evil consequences of the hastiness shown by the Ansars. Through Allah’s Mercy and Grace, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) saved the Ummah from civil war and destruction. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentions here that if anyone rushes to elect their own man as the Ansars had done, then this time around they would be severely punished for that. Again, this was a criticism of the Ansars and not the three Muhajirs.
On the one hand Ibn al Hashimi is insisting that Shura pursuant to Quranic principles took place at Saqifa and on the other he acknowledges that the Muhajirs were excluded from the Shura. There was absolutely no need to rush through the bayya to Abu Bakr, why didn’t the three underline the principle of Shura at the meeting and insist that the matter be kept in abeyance until the muhajir were are also provided the opportunity to have a say? If Abu Bakr and Umar wanted the remainder Muhjair to partake in the Saqifa discussions they would have notified them of the meeting and taken them with them, they did not, that was precisely what they wanted, a process wherein one of the three was voted in without any questions / objections from the Muhajirs, since that would have thwarted their plans. Umar was insisting that if this non consultation method was to be repeated then it would merit the death penalty, so why was he comfortable with Abu Bakr appointing him directly without consulting the other Sahaba? As per Umar’s own ruling both him and Abu Bakr should have been killed. Umar described it as evil, and if replicated merited the death penalty. If there had indeed been a genuine Shura to appoint Abu Bakr as Ibn al Hashimi insists, why was he describing the appointment method of Abu Bakr as evil that merited the death penalty if repeated again? Clearly an act that Umar opined was so severe that it attracted capital punishment cannot be deemed a legitimate method, so how was the “evil” legitimate in the case of Abu Bakr?
It is also ironic that the same Umar whom Ibn al Hashimi insists was a vanguard of the doctrine of Shura was willing to dispense with it altogether Suyuti records Umar’s testimony as follows.
“… If my term overtakes me, and Abu Ubaydah al Jarrah is still alive, then I would appoint him as Khalifa. If my Lord asked me, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘Every Prophet has a trustworthy (companion), and my trustworthy companion is Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah’. If my time overtakes me and Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah has died, I would appoint Mu’adh ibn Jabal as Khalifas. If my Lord asked me ‘Why did you appoint him as a Khalifah’, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘He will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection a distance in front of the men of knowledge’. They had both died during his Khalifah”.
According to Umar had these people been alive, the notion of Shura would not have even come into the equation, he would have appointed either of them directly. He was openly advocating appointing people through nass, so where does that leave the doctrine of shura? This admission proves that the shura process that Ibn al-Hashimi worships was not even fully wholeheartedly supported by Umar!
Ibn al Hashimi states
Actually, neither Ammar (رضّى الله عنه) nor Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) were ever Shia in the sense of Imamiyyah Shi’ism. They were mainstream Muslims and not followers of heterodoxy. Neither Ammar (رضّى الله عنه) nor Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) held the opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah and His Messenger to be the first Infallible Imam. If that were the case, then why would the same Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) reject the Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) twenty-five years later in the Battle of the Camel? Based on this, we see that the supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) after Saqifah did not at all believe that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed to be Caliph or Imam, but rather they simply felt that he was more fitted for that position based on worldly reasons. The idea that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by Allah was actually propagated much afterwards during the Caliphate of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) by the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba and the Ghullat originators of modern day Shi’ism.
The supporters of Ali (as) were those that believed that Ali (as) had the legitimate right to lead the Ummah as he had been appointed for the role by Rasulullah (s). If Zubayr changed his view later that was all down to the shameless politics that he adhered to. The fact is the Shia of Ali (as) did believe that Ali (as) was divinely appointed, take Ibn Abbas who made the point clear when responding to Umar’s insistence that he had done right in preventing Prophethood and Caliphate to remain in one family:
“As for you saying, Commander of the Faithful, that Quraysh have made their choice for themselves and that they were right and have been granted success, if Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied.
We will discuss this later in this chapter, suffice it to say Ibn Abbas was clearly referring to the divine appointment of an individual that the Quraysh had ignored. This was clearly alluding to Ali (as) so where did Ibn Abbas get this Ghulu aqeedah from, Ibn Saba?
Ibn al Hashimi
It may well have been Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who a group of people were intent on electing without consulting the rest of the Muslims. Likewise had Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) approached Ali (رضّى الله عنه) after the Prophet’s death, urging Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to seize the Caliphate without consulting the other Muslims. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was therefore discouraging anyone, not only Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but all other possible candidates as well, to refrain from rushing to nominate their own man without consulting the rest of the Muslims first.
Actually, by this time, a great competition had begun between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. Both clans were wishing to keep the rulership for themselves and they were aggressively vying for power. In this matter, both groups were equally to blame. Both the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah consisted of good and bad people. Perhaps the Shia would demand that the Banu Hashim is automatically superior based on the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was from this clan, but let us remind them that Abu Lahab was also from the Banu Hashim. The Shia may point to some evil person being from the Banu Umayyah, but we remind them that the Prophet’s wives were from Banu Umayyah. We read:
From the very beginning, the Prophet was being harassed and oppressed by his own people, and his mission was being continually interrupted by violent, and even armed, opposition. A tendentious impression, contrary to the facts, has been assiduously created by most of the (Shia) writers that Banu Ummayah were the worst enemies of the Prophet and his mission…(but) the Umayyad’s opposition (is) exaggerated.
As a matter of fact, more Ummayads than Hashimites figured among those who migrated to Medinah with the Prophet and also among those who had previously migrated toEthiopia. Similarly, among those who participated in the Battle of Badr, more Umayyads than Hashimites fought for the Cause of Islam. Barring four or five, all Hashimite notables, including the Prophet’s own cousins, fought on the side of the Meccans.
No doubt, the Umayyads at that time masterminded the Meccan opposition (but this was only) since Abu Sufyan happened to be the acknowledged leader of the Meccans. But it should not forgotten that–the Prophet’s own first cousins, Talib and Aqeel (sons of Abu Talib), Utbah and Utaibah (sons of his uncle Abu Lahab), Naufal bin al-Harith bin Abdil Muttalib (of Banu Hashim), Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi (of Banu Hashim), and Abdullah bin Umayyah (son of the Prophet’s aunt Aatikah)–were all on the side of Meccans in the Battle of Badr. Talib, the eldest brother of Ali, was actually killed fighting devotedly for the Meccans. Late in 8 A.H. or early in 9 A.H., when Abu Sufyan al-Hashimi and Abdullah bin Umayyah (the two cousins of the Prophet mentioned above) first met the Prophet, he (the Prophet) turned his face in disgust and did not even like to look at them…his cousin, Aqeel bin Abi Talib (Ali’s brother), had hastened to occupy (i.e. usurp) the Prophet’s house as an “evacuee” property when the Prophet migrated to Medinah, and later he (Aqeel) sold it to a brother of Hajjaj bin Yousuf. The Prophet actually complained of his behavior when he was asked on the fall ofMecca…(sources: “Asah-hus-Siwar” by Maulana Danapuri, “Seerat-un-Nabi by Allamah Shibli and “Jila-ul-Uyoon” by the famous Shia esteemed traditionist Mullah Baqir Majlisi).
Few Hashimites were appointed by the Prophet to any high office of responsibility while several Umayyads, including Abu Sufyan and his son, Yezid, were appointed governors. The Prophet married his eldest daughter, Zaynab, to an Umayyad, Abul Aas bin ar-Rahee. They proved a happily married couple and the Prophet openly paid a tribute to his Umayyad son-in-law (sources: Sahih Bukhari and “Bab Dhikr Ashaar-in-Nabi”). The second and the third daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthoom, were formally engaged to his Hashimite first cousins, Utbah and Utaibah (sons of Abu Lahab), but they broke the engagement to spite the Prophet. Thereupon, the PRophet married these daughters, one after another, to Uthman bin Affan, another Umayyad notable, who gave him no cause for regret…
In the end, in connection with the baseless charge of the Umayyad’s (supposed) inveterate prejudice against Islam, suffice it to say that, on the contrary, it is a Hashimite’s (Abu Lahab) unenviable distinction that he (Abu Lahab) and his family have been eternally condemned by name in the Quran for their enmity towards the Prophet and his mission. Apart from being the usual form of the customary curse, the expression “the two hands of Abi Lahab” may metaphorically refer to his two sons, Utbah and Utaibah…
(The Last Messenger with a Lasting Message, by Ziauddin Kirmani, pp.186-191)
In any case, this rivalry was a natural result of human nature, namely of supporting one’s own family over and above others.
Some from amongst the Banu Hashim held the errant opinion that they should be favored over others simply because they were a clan blessed with Prophethood. Likewise, some from amongst the Banu Umayyah held the errant opinion that they should be favored because they had always been the leaders of Mecca. This power struggle was getting very intense and thankfully neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Umar (رضّى الله عنه) came from either clan. However, after Umar’s death, the two most capable candidates left were Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) from the Banu Umayyah and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from the Banu Hashim. Each clan was putting pressure on these two candidates, urging them to lay claim to the Caliphate.
Look at the hatred spewing from the mouth of this Nasibi who insists the Hashimites were the biggest enemies of Rasulullah (s) not the Ummayads. Note he quotes a modern day secondary source who has not referenced anything. To counter this Nasibi we will point out that:
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was stabbed by Abu Lula, the beloved of the Shia–whom they call “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” On his deathbed, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) sought to unify the ranks of the Muslims, and therefore he ordered the assembly of an Electoral Council with representatives from both Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim. By thus doing so, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ensured that the two clans come to a mutual agreement and remain united. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) nominated Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be in this Electoral Council. Therefore, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was not at all shutting the doors of the Caliphate of either of these men, but rather he was simply making sure that neither of their clans would declare their own Caliph without consulting the rivaling clan. And this is why Umar (رضّى الله عنه) made this “fiery speech” warning the people not to nominate a Caliph without consulting all sides.
In fact, this is a fact not known by many Shia, but Umar’s top choice was actually Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . Umar (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to place Ali (رضّى الله عنه) over his own son, Abdullah ibn Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . We read:
So (those who had asked him to nominate Abdullah ibn Umar) left and returned in the evening, suggesting to the Commander of the Faithful (Umar) that he draw up a sucession agreement. He (Umar) replied: “I had decided after talking to you that I would look into the matter and appoint someone over you, the most suitable of you to bear you along the true path.” And he indicated Ali. He (Umar) continued: “But…I do not want to take on the burden (of the Caliphate), dead as well as alive. You should approach that group of men who the Messenger of Allah said ‘are among the People of Paradise.’”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.144)
If Umar really wanted Ali (as) to be Khalifa he would have appointed him, that is a fact. We already cited the fact that he had made it clear on his death bed “… If my term overtakes me, and Abu Ubaydah al Jarrah is still alive, then I would appoint him as Khalifa. If my Lord asked me, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘Every Prophet has a trustworthy (companion), and my trustworthy companion is Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah’. If my time overtakes me and Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah has died, I would appoint Mu’adh ibn Jabal as Khalifas. If my Lord asked me ‘Why did you appoint him as a Khalifah’, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘He will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection a distance in front of the men of knowledge’. They had both died during his Khalifah”.
Now if Umar was prepared to appoint the above deceased individuals on the basis of nass why did he not do the same in the case of Ali (as) who as per his own admission:
“Ali was given three qualities any of which I should prefer the gift of over high-bred camels’. He was asked ‘And what are they?’ He said, ‘He married him his daughter Fatimah; his dwelling at the mosque, and the standard on the day of Khaybar.’
These excellences were way in excess of those individuals that he would have appointed so why didn’t he therefore appoint Ali (as) directly?
Ibn al Hashimi states
Does this at all sound like a man who despises Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and who wants to prevent him from becoming Caliph? Why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) tell all the people that he thinks that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is most suited for the task? How long can the Shia operate under such strange conspiracy theories whereby they pit Umar (رضّى الله عنه) against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , even though we know that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) gave his own daughter in marriage to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ! And yet, the Shia are fooled by the lies of the likes of Abdullah bin Saba who create such unlikely conspiracy theories that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) despised each other. If Umar (رضّى الله عنه) truly sought to deny the Caliphate to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , then why did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) choose Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be one of the six on the Electoral Council? Why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) thus make Ali (رضّى الله عنه) eligible for the Caliphate? It is strange how the Shia can say such strange things that defy common sense. In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) even commented on the Electoral Council, saying:
“I think one of these two, Ali or Uthman, will become the leader. If it is Uthman, he is a gentle person; if it is Ali, he has a (good) sense of humor, how suitable is he to carry them along the true road!”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, p.146)
Does this sound like a person who is conspiring to prevent Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from the Caliphate? Not only did Umar (رضّى الله عنه) place Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on the Electoral Council but he also included Ali’s known supporter, Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) . Why didn’t Umar (رضّى الله عنه) simply nominate Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph? Would that not have been a much more easier and simpler method of marginalizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) placed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his supporter, Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) , on the Electoral Council; is this what the Shia consider an “unrelenting/systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach” of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) disqualified his own son, and yet he publically endorsed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) above even Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . A truly strange “systematic campaign”; perhaps the only “unrelenting/systematic campaign” is that of the Shia lies and slander against the Sahabah.
Umar knew fully well that votes would not going to favor Ali (as). Umar justified the appointment of Abu Bakr on the basis that Prophethood and Caliphate should exist on one family, he therefore set in place a committee with that same thinking. Talha was related to Abu Bakr, Zubayt was his son in law. Abdul Rahman bin Awf was related to Uthman, Sad bin Ab Waqqas was related to Abdul Rahman, his mother was an Ummayad. It was therefire clear that Uthman had more supporters on the committee.,
If there is one thing that we cannot deny it is the fact the Umar was a shrewd, astute politician. We already know that he had justified going to Saqifa on the basis of the fact that he was reflecting an attitude that Prophethood and Caliphate should not be combined in one family. When this was the attitude of Umar, how could he therefore tolerate transferring power over to Imam Ali (as)? To do so, would fly in the face of his own thinking, yet he did not want his scheming to “appear” bias to outside observers, hence his insistence that his succession be determined by a six man shura. The interesting thing is that the shura itself was the third option. As we had already cited Umar’s first option was to appoint men directly due to their excellences but those whom he deemed worthy were deceased. When it came to the shura discussions, Abdul Rahman bin Auf chose himself as the self appointed king maker nd as Hizb ut Tahrir in their lead work “al Khilafah” page 37 states:
“… As for the appointment of the six people by ‘Umar, it was a nomination to them by him upon the request of the Muslims. Then ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf consulted the Muslims about whom they wanted from the six people. The majority wanted ‘Ali if he adhered to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, otherwise they wanted ‘Uthman. When ‘Ali rejected to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf gave the pledge to ‘Uthman and the people gave their pledge”.
With Abdul Rahman bin Auf the cousin of Uthman at the helm it was clear that this whole process was a ruse, and was in fact geared towards securing Caliphate for Uthman, Imam Ali (as) knew that the process was a ruse and stated:
“Ali said to some Banu Hashim who were with him, “If your people are obeyed [only] among themselves, you will never be appointed to positions of leadership”. Al Abbas came tp him, and [Ali] said “(the caliphate) has slipped from us!” [Al Abbas) asked him how he knew. He continued, (Umar) paired me with Uthman and told us [all] to fall in with the majority. If two approve of one, and two other he said we should be on the same side as Abd-al Rahman b. Awf. Sa’d will not go against his cousin, Abd-al Rahman who is related by marriage to Uthman. They will all (three) in their opinion. Abd-al Rahman will appoint Uthman to the caliphate”
The History of Tabari, Volume 14 page 147
Umar’s attitude to the issue surfaces during his khilafat, in one of those brief interludes between the demands that statesmanship make on a man. Speaking with impunity now as the second Khalifa and the designated ‘Commander of the Faithful’, Umar stated the following, as recorded by al Tabari who documents the following conversation between Abdullah ibne Abbas and Hadhrath Umar. Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates that Hadhrath Umar asked:
“..Ibn Abbas! What prevented ‘Ali from coming with us?’ I replied, ‘I do not know’. He continued, ‘Ibn Abbas your father is the paternal uncle of the Messenger of God. You are his cousin. What has prevented your people from putting you [in authority]?’ I replied that I did not know. He continued ‘But I do know, they do not like you being put in charge of them’. I said ‘Why, when we are good to them?’ Umar replied O God [grant] forgiveness. They do not like you to combine Prophethood and the caliphate among yourselves, less it bring about self-aggrandizement and pride. You will perhaps say, ‘Abu Bakr did this’. No indeed, but Abu Bakr did the most resolute thing he could. If he had made (the caliphate) yours, he would not have benefited you despite your close ties of relationship [to the Prophet]“.
The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, pages 136-137
Hadhrath Umar sought to justify the position that the people disliked the Prophethood and caliphate to run through the same family. This is an attitude that has been noted before.
Al Tabari records a further, more heated discussion between the two individuals; again the narrator is Abdullah ibn Abbas:
“(Umar) said, “Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what kept your people from [being put] over (Quraysh) after Muhammad’s death”. I did not want to answer, so I said, “If I do not know then the Commander of the Faithful will tell me”. Umar said, “They were unwilling for you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest you magnify yourselves among your own people and be proud. Quraysh made the choice for themselves; they were right and have been granted success”. I said, Commander of the Faithful, if you permit me and not get angry with me, I shall speak”. He allowed me to do so, so I said “As for you saying, Commander of the Faithful, that Quraysh have made their choice for themselves and that they were right and have been granted success, if Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied. As for your saying that (Quraysh) were averse to the Prophethood and caliphate being ours, God has described one people as being averse and said, “This is because they were averse to what God revealed, so He made their works fruitless’”. ‘Umar said, “Far from it indeed, Ibn Abbas. I used to hear things about you of which I was reluctant to inquire, lest they bring about your removal from your position with me”. I said, “What are they Commander of the Faithful If they are right, they should not [be such as to] remove me from my position with you; if they are false, then someone like me will remove the falsehood from himself”. ‘Umar said, “I have you saying they have turned (the caliphate) away from you out of envy and injustice”. I replied, “When you say out of injustice, Commander of the Faithful, it has already become clear to the ignorant and the thoughtful alike; when you say out of envy, Iblis was envious of Adam, and we are his offspring who are envied”. ‘Umar said, “Far from it! You hearts Bani Hashim, have refused [to show anything] other than unchanging envy and increasing spite and malice”. I replied, “Take it easy Commander of the Faithful; do not deceive the hearts of a people from whom God has removed uncleanness, and whom He has purified completely, as being envious and malicious. The heart of the Messenger of God is one of the hearts of the Banu Hashim”.
The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, pages 136-138
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
In fact, this is a narration about the same event but it is a weak and inauthentic version narrated by Ibn Humayd, who we have already discussed before in our rebuttal; Ibn Humayd was known as a liar and shameless forger. The discrepancies between the first version quoted by Answering-Ansar and this version by Ibn Humayd show clearly that the latter contains many anomalies in it, in particular the odd and out-of-place dialogue.
Ibn al-Hashimi has through his customary deceitful tact inherited from his spiritual ancestors sought to mislead his readers into believing that Ibn Humayd was someone unanimously rejected by the Sunni clergy, that evidences further dishonesty on his part. We should point out that al-Haythami said about Ibn Humayd: “He is Thiqah, but there is disagreement about him” (Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 290 Hadith 15568). Ibn al-Hashimi’s own beloved Imam Nasiruddin Al-Albaani quoted al-Haythami’s text and agreed with it in his book Silsila Sahiha, Volume 3 page 225 Hadith 1225. Having mentioned that Ibn Humayd was a Thiqah narrator in the eyes of al-Haythami and Al-Albaani, let us also point out that he has likewise been declared a Thiqah narrator by Imam Yahya bin Moin and Imam Al-Tyalesi as recorded in Tahdib al-Kamal, Volume 25 page 101. Similarly, Al-Mizzi, the author of Tahdib al-Kamal has recorded views of other esteemed Sunni scholars who praised Ibn Humayd including Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali and Abu Bakr al-Saghani. Moreover, Imam Darqatni in his Sunnan, (Volume 1 page 103 Hadith 81) has recorded a Hadith wherein Muhammad bin Humayd appears in the chain that has been declared ‘Hasan’ not only by Imam Darqatni himself but also by two respective revisers of the book namely Shaykh Majdi bin Mansur bin Syed al-Shouri and Syed Abdullah Hashim Yamani al-Madni. Also Qurtubi, in his commentary of verse 48 of Surah Furqaan quoted the said Hadith from Darqatni and confirmed that it was ‘Hasan’. Imam Tirmidhi in his Sunan, Volume 4 page 63 has termed a hadith wherein Ibn Humayd appears in the chain as ‘Hasan’. Imam Abu Daud narrated from him in his book Sunan Abu Daud and he never commented on his narrations, that means he also deemed him to be authentic.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Having said that, Answering-Ansar did not even quote the entire passage, and quite cleverly cut out the very next line, in which Umar (رضّى الله عنه) softens. Even though the passage is inauthentic, let us at least read the entire narration. Right before what Answering-Ansar quoted, we read:
As Umar b. al-Khattab and some of his friends were reciting poetry together, one said that so and so was the best poet. Another said that, rather, so and so was the best poet…I (Ibn Abbas) arrived and Umar remarked: “The most knowledgeable on the subject has just arrived.” And he asked: Who is the best poet, Ibn Abbas?” I replied it was Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma.
[Ibn Abbas then narrates poetry from Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma]
“Bravo!” exclaimed Umar. “I do not know of anyone more worthy of such poetry than this branch of Banu Hashim because of the excellence of the Messenger of Allah and their close relationship to him.”
I said: “May you be granted lasting success, Commander of the Faithful.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.14, pp.136-137)
Notice the praise Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gives Banu Hashim by calling them worthy and close to the Messenger of Allah. And Ibn Abbas says to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) : “May you be granted lasting success.” So we see that the two were actually very close and loved each other. Answering-Ansar has quite cleverly only quoted the middle part of the passage in which the two Sahabah get into a small squabble, a tactic quite common amongst trouble-makers who wish to take things out of context.
What on earth is Ibn al Hashimi seeking to prove from this text? Umar praises Ibn Abbas for being a good poet and Ibn Abbas prays for his well being, so what? Does that negate the heated exchange that follows thereafter, wherein Ibn Abbas casts serious aspersions on those that ousted Ali (as) from power? Let us now proceed to the text.
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
It should also be noted that Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was the cause of the disagreement, not Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Umar (رضّى الله عنه) addressed the Banu Hashim with love and respect, saying that it was worthy, excellent, etc. After having said all that, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to explain why the people chose not to elect a leader from Banu Hashim in spite of all that, namely that they did not want the Banu Hashim to become full of pride and arrogance for having been blessed with Prophethood and Caliphate. (And this was a legitimate concern considering the arrogant attitude of some from amongst Banu Hashim who denigrated Banu Umayyah.)
Rather than blame Ibn Abbas, why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi admit that it was his client that set of the proverbial fireworks, as he goaded Ibn Abbas to come forth with his opinion, one that was likely to cause a response.
“(Umar) said, “Do you know, Ibn Abbas, what kept your people from [being put] over (Quraysh) after Muhammad’s death”. I did not want to answer, so I said, “If I do not know then the Commander of the Faithful will tell me”. Umar said, “They were unwilling for you to combine the Prophethood and the caliphate, lest you magnify yourselves among your own people and be proud. Quraysh made the choice for themselves; they were right and have been granted success”.
From this we can see that Umar was seeking to justify why the Quraysh sought to intervene in a matter that prevented the Banu Hashim from taking power. Who were these people of the Quraysh that intervened in this manner with a view to stymie the Banu Hashim, and by doing so were granted success? It was not the Quraysh as a combined unit, it was three men Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah that were granted success in Saqifa. The cat has well and truly been let out of the bag. Ibn al Hashimi will insist that Abu Bakr and Umar had no hidden motive when they set out to Saqifa, well here Umar acknowledges that there was a motive to ensure that caliphate was not transferred to the Banu Hashim after the death of Rasulullah (s). It were these comments that resulted in Ibn Abbas providing a swift riposte that attracted the ire of Ibn al Hashimi. The interesting thing is Ibn al Hashimi failed to comment on the riposte itself which was as follows:
“As for you saying, Commander of the Faithful, that Quraysh have made their choice for themselves and that they were right and have been granted success, if Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied.
Ibn al Hashimi failed to offer any explanation to these comments that in effect take apart the entire doctrine of man made khilafat. Ibn Abbas was making it blatantly clear that the Quraysh by making their own choice of Khalifa had opposed the choice of Khalifa made by Allah (swt). He was clearly inferring to the fact that the appointment of Ali (as) as Khalifa was a divine one, whilst their method appointment was not in accordance with the will of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s), that thus entitled people to oppose it. Ibn Abbas was clearly making a reference to Surah Ahzab verse 36 wherein Allah (swt) declares:
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
The reply does not just end there. Ibn al Abbas then takes apart Umar’s entire thinking that Caliphate and Prophethood should not be in one family with this response:
As for your saying that (Quraysh) were averse to the Prophethood and caliphate being ours, God has described one people as being averse and said, “This is because they were averse to what God revealed, so He made their works fruitless’”.
Ibn Abbas relied upon Surah Muhammad verse 9 for his response. Ibn Abbas drew a clear distinction between the Khalifa Allah (swt) chose, and Khaiifa that the people chose for themselves. This completely tears apart Ibn al Hashimi’s ad nausea rant that believing that Caliphate is divinely appointed was the brainchild of Ibn Saba who appeared during the Caliphate of Uthman. Here we have Ibn Abbas a Sahabi of Rasulullah (s) who as per Sunni beliefs is from those that are “just and truthful” attesting to the fact that Allah (swt) appointed the Khalifa to succeed Rasulullah (s), long before Ibn Saba appeared on the scene. This explains why Ibn al Hashimi sought to completely ignore these counter arguments to those of Umar, preferring to offer comments on the later part of the discussion.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
To this, Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) likened these people to a people Allah described in the Quran who happened to be disbelievers.
Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest that Ibn Abbas came out with some childish rant, but there was far more to it. Having highlighted the fact that there existed no legal basis for appointing a Khalifa when one had already been appointed by Allah (swt), Umar relays back what he understood that Ibn Abbas was alluding to:
‘Umar said, “I have you saying they have turned (the caliphate) away from you out of envy and injustice”.
Umar was angered by these comments that openly challenged the methodology that he engineered at Saqifa, but the matter did not just end there, Ibn Abbas elaborated yet further
I replied, “When you say out of injustice, Commander of the Faithful, it has already become clear to the ignorant and the thoughtful alike;
Ibn Abbas was making it clear that by opting for their own choice of Khalifa an injustice not only did Ali (as) and the Banu Hashim opine that an injustice had occurred, everyone recognised this reality.
Ibn Abbas then continues:
when you say out of envy, Iblis was envious of Adam, and we are his offspring who are envied”.
Ibn Abbas was making a reference to Surah Aale-Imran verses 33-34:
Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of ‘Imran above all people,- Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Ibn Abbas was making it clear that Iblis was jealous of Adam, and as the descendants of Adam such jealously is not an unusual thing. The jealousy was over the designated position that Allah (swt) had bestowed upon them. By highlighting jealousy Ibn Abbas was also alluding to Surah Nisa verse 54 of the Quran wherein Allah (swt) states:
Or do they envy mankind for what Allah hath given them of his bounty? but We had already given the people of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and conferred upon them a great kingdom
Ibn Abbas was clearly referring to the fact that the family of Ibrahim (as) were designated with divine scriptures (the Book), wisdom and a great kingdom (leadership). In the same way that people were envious of the family of Ibrahim (as), the same envy was being exhibited against the family of Rasulullah (s), who had inherited the Book, wisdom and Imamate.
The said comments enraged Umar who lashed out with these comments ‘Umar said, “Far from it! Your hearts Bani Hashim, have refused [to show anything] other than unchanging envy and increasing spite and malice”
Whilst Ibn al Hashimi showed his admiration at these comments we would urge our readers to ponder over the immediate to counter of Ibn Abbas:
“Take it easy Commander of the Faithful; do not deceive the hearts of a people from whom God has removed uncleanness, and whom He has purified completely, as being envious and malicious. The heart of the Messenger of God is one of the hearts of the Banu Hashim”
Ibn Abbas was warning Umar to watch his tongue since he was insulting from amongst the Banu Hashim those “from whom God has removed uncleanness, and whom He has purified completely” – a clear reference Surah Ahzab verse 33, wherein Allah (swt) declares:
Now this did verse does not incorporate ALL of the Banu Hashim, it only includes certain individuals that have been purified of all forms of uncleanliness, who are they? Ayesha clarifies this for us
The comments of Ibn Abbas nullify Umar’s justification for assuming power, rather than allowing Ali (as) to take it as was his divine right. Ibn Abbas made it clear that the stance Umar took was not in accordance with the will of Allah (swt), rather it went against it, and was motivated by envy. Can there be any better refutation of the justifications for Saqifa than this one?