In this chapter we will first discuss each claim of Abu Bakr at Saqifa. We will thereafter cite the replies of Ibn al Hashimi followed by our respective replies thereto.
Both sides advanced arguments based on their tribal links to the Prophet (saaws), the three Muhajireen won the day advancing the following arguments as proof of khilafat:
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Here, Answering-Ansar make very absurd arguments whereby they somehow differentiate the Muhajirs from Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) . Answering-Ansar has compared the Muhajirs to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Banu Hashim. This is an invalid comparison because Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the Banu Hashim were in fact Muhajirs themselves! It is like comparing an orange with a fruit, and claiming that the orange is better than a fruit. Well, an orange is a fruit. Answering-Ansar repeatedly says that the arguments Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made about the Muhajirs apply to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as well; to this, we can only reply: “thank you very much, Captain Obvious.” Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself was a Muhajir so of course the arguments made by Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would also apply to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) !
What we are saying are the submissions of Abu Bakr entitling him to rule, gave a greater right to Maula Ali (as) as he excelled above all other Sahaba with regards to them.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
There were more than these four arguments made. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the strongest argument made by Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) –and the one that the Ansar finally assented to–was when Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) reminded the Ansars of the Prophet’s own words that the leadership should remain with the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs). And the argument “which won the day” for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was that put forth by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , namely that it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was chosen to lead the prayers in the Prophet’s sickness. This fact was actually the basis for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) .
We would invite Ibn al Hashimi to elaborate on how this was possible when the same Abu Bakr had been appointed to partake in the army of Usamah? How could Rasulullah (s) place him in the military unit, ordering they set off to avenge the death of Usamah’s father, and then also summon Abu Bakr to lead the Salat on a daily basis?
If this forms the basis for Abu Bakr’s right to lead the prayers then there exist Sunni traditions wherein Rasulullah (s) read prayers behind an individual as is recorded in Muwata Imam Malik Book 2, Number 2.8.42:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abbad ibn Ziyad, a descendant of al-Mughira ibn Shuba from his father from al Mughira ibn Shuba that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to relieve himself during the expedition of Tabuk. Mughira said, “I went with him, taking water. Then the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came back and I poured out the water for him. He washed his hands and then went to push his hands out of the sleeves of his garment, but could not do so because of their narrowness. So he brought them out from underneath his garment. Then he washed his arms, wiped his head and wiped over his leather socks. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, returned and Abdar Rahman ibn Awf was leading the people in prayer, and he had already finished one raka with them. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prayed the remaining raka with them to everyone’s concern. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, finished he said, ‘You have acted correctly.’ ”
If Abu Bakr’s leading prayers behind the Prophet (s) is proof his Caliphate what about Abur Rahman bin Auf who read in front of the Prophet (s)?
Let us now analyse each of the claims put forward by Abu Bakr at Saqifa.
The argument was that their relationship to the Prophet (saaws) meant that khilafat was their right. In terms of closeness there was no tribe more closely related to the Prophet (saaws) than Bani Muttalib. They were the blood descendants of the Prophet (saaws), when the verse “And warn your tribe of near kindred…” (The Qur’an 26: 214) inviting the Prophet (saaws)’s close relatives to embrace Islam. Banu Muttalib were invited not the tribes of Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar or Abu Ubaydah.
Furthermore in terms of closeness no one was closer to the Prophet (saaws) than Imam Ali (as) as he was his first cousin, the Prophet (saaws) had declared him to be his brother, the husband of his daughter and the father of his grand children.
Abu Bakr seemed to suggest that the Quraysh had a right to succession, they were related to the Holy Prophet (saaws) and had hence inherited that right. Islamic Law does not stipulate inheritance for the distant relatives, it refers to the close / blood relatives. If the Quraysh were entitled to inherit on grounds of their distant relationship to the Holy Prophet (saaws) did Ali (as) not have a greater right?
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not at all seem to suggest that the close relatives “inherit” the leadership. Do the Shia forget that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the one who said that the Prophets do not leave behind inheritance? Therefore, Answering-Ansar is merely putting words into the mouth of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . He never put forward the claim that they “inherited” the leadership. Rather, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“…they (Muhajirs) were the first who worshipped Allah on the earth and…they are his friends and kinsmen…”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.5)
We are saying that he was implying a right to rule because they were Muhajirin that thus precluded anyone else from that right, thus making it one that they de facto acquired as a form of inheritance. If Ibn al Hashimi is suggesting how Abu Bakr could say this when he said ‘Prophets do not leave behind inheritance’ that was simply said to prevent Sayyida Fatima (sa) from inheriting Fadak from her father, had he believed it he would not have allowed the wives of the Prophet (s) to remain in their apartments, rather he would have evicted them forthwith and donated the apartments to the poor and needy.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Answering-Ansar seems to have forgotten the fact that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had argued that the Muhajirs were family and friends of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), meaning that they were in a position of closeness to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the Ansars were. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was arguing that the Muhajirs were close to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the Ansars were. If we look at it on this basis, then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would be superior in this aspect as compared to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . Abu Bakr’s friendship preceded Ali’s by many years due to the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was born much afterwards. No man was closer in love to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) than Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . We read in the following Hadith narrated by Amr ibn al-Aas (رضّى الله عنه) :
So I came to him (the Prophet) and said, “Which of the people is dearest to you?” He said, “Aisha.” I said: “Who among the men?” He (the Prophet) said: “Her father.”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3662; Sahih Muslim, 2384
The best way to counter Ibn al Hashimi’s claim is to cite the testimony of none other than Ayesha herself, recorded and declared Sahih by Imam Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume 4 page 261 Tradition 4744:
Jami bin Umair narrates: ‘I accompanied my aunt and approached Ayesha (ra) and asked her: ‘Who was the dearest among the people to Rasulullah?’ She replied ‘Fatima‘. I then asked ‘And amongst men? She replied ‘Her husband’
Imam Nasai records in Khasais Imam Ali, page 89:
Amr bin Ali narrated from Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab from Muhammad bin Ismail bin Raja al-Zubaidi from Abi Ishaq al-Shaybani from Jami bin Umair who narrated: ‘I along with my father went to Ayesha and asked her (behind the veil) about Ali. She replied: ‘You are asking me about a man whom I know NONE among the men that the Holy Prophet loved most except him and NONE among the women except his wife’.
Jami bin Umair: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p156). Abu Ishaq al-Shaybani: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p386). Muhammad bin Ismail bin Raja: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p55). Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p603). Amro bin Ali: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p741). Moreover the margin writer of the book namely Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni who has been one of the beloved students of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi has also declared the chain of this tradition to be ‘Sahih’.
In another tradition recorded by Imam Haythami in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 24 Tradition 14730, Ayesha has herself testified that Ali (as) was more dearest to Holy Prophet (s) than Abu Bakr:
Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet (s), then he heard Ayesha saying (to the prophet): ‘I knew that Ali is dearest to you than my father’. She said that twice or thrice’
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:
‘al-Bazar recorded it and the narrators the narrator of Sahih’
Same episode has also been narrated in this manner in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 136 Tradition 15194:
Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet (s), whereupon he heard Ayesha’s loudly raised voice, saying (to the prophet): ‘I knew that Ali and Fatima are more dearer to you than me and my father’. She said that twice or thrice – Abu Bakr then asked for permission and entered he approached her and said: ‘O daughter, you should not raise your voice before Allah’s messenger (s)’.
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:
‘Ahmad recorded it and the narrators are the narrators of the Sahih’.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
This is not correct at all. In fact, the closest living relative of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) at that time had to be Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) , not Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was the Prophet’s uncle, a closer relationship than being a cousin. Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was the Prophet’s father’s brother, whereas Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the Prophet’s father’s brother’s son. In other words, Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was closer to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) by one link. The Shia argument is that the leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) due to the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the closest in blood relationship to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). But in fact, Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was closer to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) by blood, and therefore–by the Shia logic–the leadership of the Muslims should stay within the descendants of Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) . And yet, we see that our Shia brothers despise the Abbasid Empire which was Sunni! Being the rabble-rousers they are, the Shia supported the Abbasid revolution against the Umayyads, but as soon as the Abassids actually came to power, then the Shia rebelled against them. In 786, the Shia organized a revolt against the Abbasids; such is the hatred the Shia have for the lineage of Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) . Why should the Shia necessitate us to follow the lineage of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) when they themselves reject and repudiate the lineage of Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) ?
In other words, if the Shia are to use the claim that the leadership should have gone to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for his closeness to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then the Sunnis have a greater claim for the leadership based on the even closer relationship of Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). If the Shia claim that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was closer because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) referred to him as his “brother”, then the Sunnis have a greater claim because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) referred to Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) as his “father”. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said in one Hadith:
“Abbas is the uncle of the Prophet of Allah and an uncle is equal in status to the father.”
Fatherhood is a closer position than brotherhood. On this same basis, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was father-in-law of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). If Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was to be granted the right of Caliphate based on him being the son-in-law, then shouldn’t Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) have a greater right based on being the Prophet’s father-in-law? And what about Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , who was given two of the Prophet’s daughters; based on the Shia logic, should not Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) be twice as entitled to the Caliphate as Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ? Abu Lahab was actually closer in blood relationship to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) than Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was, so should we also argue then that Abu Lahab had a right to the Caliphate?
Ibn al Hashimi seems to have forgotten that we are countering the arguments of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was arguing for Caliphate based on the close link with Rasulullah (s) we are saying that Ali (as) had a closer link. We are not saying that Ali (as) had the right because he was the son in law of Rasulullah (s), our belief is that Ali (as) had that right because Rasulullah (s) bestowed that right on him.
Now coming to the thrust of this argument, namely that Abbas was superior and his family thus were more entitled to rule to counter the simplest way is to cite those Sunni traditions wherein Rasulullah (s) cited those nexus that he and Ali (as) had that no one else possessed. We read in Fadhail al-Sahaba, by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 2 page 662:
حدثنا الحسن قثنا أحمد بن المقدام العجلي قثنا الفضيل بن عياض قثنا ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن زاذان عن سلمان قال سمعت حبيبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول : كنت انا وعلي نورا بين يدي الله عز و جل قبل ان يخلق آدم بأربعة عشر ألف عام فلما خلق الله آدم قسم ذلك النور جزءين فجزء أنا وجزء علي عليه السلام
Salman said: ‘I hear our beloved Allah’s messenger saying: Ali and I were a light between Allah’s hands prior the creation of Adam by fourteen thousand year, and when Allah created Adam he divided that light into two parts, a part is me and another part is Ali’
The relationship between Ali (as) and Rasulullah (s) existed before Adam and was so close that formed part of one celestial light, can there exist a closer relationship than this?
Moreover Mufti of Daar-ul-Uloom Jilianiyah,London namely Mufti Ghulam Rasool al-Hanafi (d. October 2010) in his book Hasab aur Nasab page 117 quotes this tradition from a plethora of sources:
“O group of Muslims this (Ali) is my brother and is the son of my uncle, is my son in law, he is my flesh and blood! [Majma al Zawaid Volume 9 page 111, Kanwaaz al Haqaiq page 141, Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 154, Tarrikh Baghdad Volume 2 page 204]
No other person can get closer to a person than one’s own flesh and blood, it is a part of the human body wrapped around bone, it has an attachment that no other person can attain. Now when Rasulullah (s) describes Maula Ali (as) as his flesh then it denotes such close connection that no one else can attain it.
If Abbas was the closest relative then did Rasulullah (s) include him in the cloak pursuant to Surah Ahzab verse 33? We see that he (s) did not, rather according to the testimony of Ayesha in Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5955:
“….. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel’s hair that there came Hasan b. ‘Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came ‘Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)”
Then we have the event of Mubahila. This related to the challenge with the Christians to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the Prophet (s), and as Sad bin Waqqas stated in Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5915:
“…when the (following) verse was revealed:” Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fitima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family”.
Suyuti in his commentary of the verse writes:
In the above verse (3:61), according to what Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari said, the word “sons” refers to al-Hasan and al-Husain, the word “women” refers to Fatimah, and the word “our selves” refer to the Prophet and Ali. Thus Ali is referred as “the self” of the Prophet (Nafs of the Prophet).
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 pages 68-69
Nafs (the soul) is inexplicably linked to an individual it is the closest thing that an individual has, as it is part and parcel of him, Ali (as) is the Nafs of the Prophet (s), can there be a closer relationship than that?
As for the argument that the Abbasides were more closely related to Rasulullah (s) through lineage then allow us to cite a debate on this very matter between one such Abbasaide Khalifa and our seventh Imam. We are citing this from the late Mufti Ghulam Rasul’s book ‘Hasab aur Nasab’ Volume 1 page 59 in his discussions on who Syeds are:
“When this question was posed to Imam Musa Kazim (as) (d. 183 Hijri) by the Khalifa of the Muslims Harun Rashid for some reason he said we are the family of the Prophet (s) whilst you are the family of Ali. Imam Musa Kazim responded by citing a Quranic verse as evidence
“ We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good
And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous:”
Hadhrat Musa Kazim (as) said that Isa had no father, which is why in the same way that his familial lineage goes back through his mother Hadhrat Maryam (as) and links to Hadrath Ibrahim (as), our lineage links to our mother and Sayyida Fatima Zahra and from her to the Prophet (s) (Nur al Absar page 134)
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
The Shia point to the fact that it was Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) referred to as his brother, but the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) likewise referred to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as his brother. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) :
‘You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book…”
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol.7, Book 62, No.18)
Allow us to cite the context in which Rasulullah (s) referred to Abu Bakr as his brother, to show how dishonest Ibn al Hashimi. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated ‘Urwa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
Note how the narrator of this tradition namely Urwa the nephew of Aisha, and not Aisha herself. Urwa is cascading this narration as a direct eye witness, present at the side of his grandfather, as can be evidenced by the fact he at no point attests I heard from so and so, rather he states the Prophet (s) asked for the hand of Aisha and his grandfather said “But I am your brother.” Now think carefully Urwa is the younger brother of Abdullah ibn Zubair, who was born in Madina, and this alleged incident occurred when Aisha was six years of age! This being the case how is he the narrator of this tradition? This in itself should suffice as grounds to question its authenticity!
That is just a point to ponder, if we accept the tradition, then a lesson can be gauged from the tradition. Abu Bakr was initially apprehensive at the proposal as the Prophet (s) was his brother thus making Aisha his niece, hence making such a union invalid. The Prophet (s) draws up a clear distinction between brothers in religion and brother through bloodline. Does this not evidence Abu Bakr’s lack of knowlege on the matter? Is this not disrespectful of Abu Bakr? The fact of the matter is Rasulullah (s) was merely citing a general concept that Muslims are brothers to one another, this confused Abu Bakr who assumed that it was tantamount to the normal blood relationship wherein one cannot marry one’s niece, Rasulullah (s) made the position clear that this was just a general brotherhood, nothing more. When it came to the bonds of brotherhood, these were made between the Sahaba on two occasions, on both the Prophet (s) took Ali (as) as his brother nobody else! Try as this Nasibi might the fraternal relationship that the Prophet (s) had with Ali (as) was incomparable in that it could not be broken either in this world or the next, and as such it is a unique relationship than no else can attain. Its uniqueness is clear from the fact that Allah (swt) says in his Glorious book 006.094:
”And behold! ye come to us bare and alone as We created you for the first time: ye have left behind you all (the favours) which We bestowed on you: We see not with you your intercessors whom ye thought to be partners in your affairs: so now all relations between you have been cut off, and your (pet) fancies have left you in the lurch!”
The verse makes it clear that all relations will be severed on the Day Judgment, but there exists one relationship that will not be severed that of brotherhood between the Prophet (s) and Ali (as) for Rasulullah (s) said:
“You are my brother in this world and the next”
Tareekh ul Khulafa by Suyuti, page 177
We read in Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 338:
قال أبو عمر: آخى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين المهاجرين بمكة ثم آخى بين المهاجرين والأنصار بالمدينة وقال في كل واحدة منهما لعلي: ” أنت أخي في الدنيا والآخرة ” وآخى بينه وبين نفسه
Abu Umar said: ‘Allah’s messenger (pbuh) made brotherhood between the Muhajirin in Makka and between the Ansar in Madina and in each of these events he (pbuh) said to Ali: ‘You are my brother in this world and the next’. And he (s) made him his own brother’.
Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, can you really compare this fraternal relationship to the tradition wherein Rasulullah (s) called Abu Bakr his brother? When it came to Abu Bakr Rasulullah (s) made it clear that this was the general relationship between brothers, but in the case of Ali (as) it was so close and inseparable that whilst all other ties will be severed on the Day of Judgment the brotherhood of the Prophet and Maula Ali (as) shall always remain intact.
Again this is an incorrect argument. The Muhajireen are advancing that they were the first to embrace Islam at the hands of the Prophet (saaws) and hence worship Allah (swt). If worshipping Allah (swt) is the criterion of succession then again Ali (as) wins on this count. If there is any doubt on this point then listen to the words of Ali (as) as contained in Tabari:
“I am the servant of God and the brother of his Messenger, and I am the most righteous one (al siddiq al-akbar). No one other than I can say this but a liar and an inventor of falsehoods, I performed prayer with the Messenger of God seven years before other men”.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Salah became mandatory on the Muslim masses after the ascension of Meraj, around seven years after the Prophet declared his apostleship. Therefore, what was meant by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was simply that he prayed before “other men”–not all other men. In other words, this does not mean that no single other Muslim prayed during that seven year period, but only that Salah had not yet become mandatory on the masses. Answering-Ansar is trying imply that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not only the first male to convert to Islam but that nobody else did that for another seven years. Surely, this is a bizarre implication that not even the staunchest Shia can accept; would they, for example, have us believe that Ammar ibn Yasir (رضّى الله عنه) did not pray for seven years after he accepted Islam?
Firstly it is good to see that Ibn al-Hashimi has at least not as usual gone to cast doubts on the authenticity of a tradition that would be in the merits of the opponent of his master Muawiyah.
As for the suggestion what was meant by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was simply that he prayed before “other men”–not all other men. Is this what the tradition is saying? Who is Ibn al Hashimi to add his own opinion when Maula Ali (as) says nothing whatsoever to suggest other men. He is making a clear claim of his superiority over other men, all other men and made it clear that anyone that suggested anything different was a liar. He would not be able to say such a thing, if (as ibn al Hashimi suggests) other men were praying before him! That would make his claim, and challenge completely otiose. The fact is, when it comes to any excellence of Ali (as) over others, Ibn al Hashimi deems it imperative to elaborate rather misinterpret the text so that the excellence means nothing. The words of Ali (as) speaks for itself. Salat may have become mandatory after Meraj, but Salat in some shape or for was being observed by Rasulullah (s) before that, and it was this form of Salat that was being practiced by Ali (as) before other believers. If any corroboration is required in this regard, then allow us to cite the following tradition recorded by Imam Nasai in his book Khasais Ali, page 22 Hadith 2 & 5:
أخبرنا محمد بن المثنى قال حدثنا عبد الرحمن قال حدثنا شعبة بن عمرو بن مرة عن أبي حمزة عن زيد ابن أرقم قال أول من صلى مع رسول الله علي
Zaid bin Arqam said: ‘The first one to offer prayer with Prophet was Ali bin Abi Talib (r)’ .
The tradition has been graded as ‘Sahih’ by both the Sunni scholars who have written the margin of the book namely Ahmad Mir bin Baloshi and Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni the one of the beloved students of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Although Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first youth to convert to Islam, the most reliable opinion is that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the first male convert to Islam; in other words, Abu Bakr’s conversion to Islam preceded that of Ali’s.
Firstly, we are in all honesty not interested in the youth, male and female categorization in the issue. And who has given Dr Ibn al-Hashmi the authority to decide on what is ‘the most reliable opinion’ in this regard? And we would also like to know what Ibn al-Hashimi has to say about the opinion of the following notable ones whom his sect believe to be guided ones upon whose adherence is Wajib:
وقال أبو ذر والمقداد، وخباب، وجابر، وابو سعيد الخدري، وغيرهم: إن علياً أول من أسلم بعد خديجة، وفضله هؤلاء على غيره
“Abu Dhar, Miqdaad, Khubab, Jabir, Abu Saeed etc said that Ali was the first who brought Islam after Khadija; and they preferred him over the others”
Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 20 page 480
Whilst we do not concur with the vast bulk of the next narration, since it exists in the books of Ibn al-Hashimi’s school and goes against what he has openly claimed hereinabove, allow us to cite it:
وسئل محمد بن كعب القرظي عن أول من أسلم: علي أو أبو بكر? قال: سبحان الله! عليّ أولهما إسلاماً، وإنما اشتبه على الناس لأن علياً أخفى إسلامه عن أبي طالب وأسلم أبو بكر وأظهر إسلامه.
Narrator asked Muhammad bin Kaab as to who was the first Muslim, was it Ali or Abu Bakr? He replied: ‘Subhanallah! Ali is the first Muslim; people got confused because Ali would keep it secret from Abu Talib whereas Abu Bakr expressed it”
Al-Isitab, volume 1 page 336
And again, whilst we do not concur with the following statement by renowned Sunni scholar and biography writer of the Holy Prophet namely Abu Ishaq, but also negates the audacious claim of Ibn al-Hashimi:
“The first one who followed the Holy Prophet was Khadija and the first man to bring Iman was Ali; and at that time his age was ten years; then Zaid bin Haritha; then Abu Bakr”
Sirah Ibn Ishaq, page 183
Whilst Nawasib are happy to attack the pure lineage of the Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (as), we believe that Imam Ali (as) was born through that pure, noble lineage that always attested to and believed in the oneness of Allah (swt), his “embracing the Deen” never came in to question he was born on it, hence his title “Karam Allah Wajho” (May Allah’s mercy be upon his face) as his face never bowed before idols.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
In fact, we read in the following narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (رضّى الله عنه) :
The first to accept Islam with the Messenger of Allah was Ali ibn Abi Talib. I mentioned this to al-Nakha’i and he denied it, saying: “Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.81)
Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) , the Prophet’s cousin, stated that the first to accept Islam was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . This has been narrated by multiple Isnads in al-Tabari. And there were many others who said the same. We read:
Abu Bakr was the first to accept Islam.
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.85)
As for the first tradition relied upon by Ibn al-Hashimi, it was Umar bin Marat who was mentioning the statement of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam to a Tabayee namely Ibrahim al-Nakha’i according to which Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the first Muslim to which al-Nakha’I adavanced his own opinion. It is upto Ibn al-Hashimi whether he wants to accept the testimony of a Sahabi or that of a Tabayee.
Although we can directly expand on the issue but we would prefer to bring in to this discussion a Sunni scholar whose views shall obviously have more value to our opponents than our own. Allow us to present the views of Peer Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani a renowned Sunni scholar from theUnited Kingdom, whose glowing accolades appear on a Sunni site as follows:
Mufakkir al-Islam Shaykh al-Sayyid Dr. Abdul-Qadir Shah al-Jilani
Born in 1935 in the region of Sandu Sayyida Sharif, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, al-Sayyid Abdul-Qadirs genealogy traces back to the great saint, Ghawth al-Azam Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani through 22 Links.
Al-Shaykh al-Sayyid Abdul-Qadir completed a PhD from Madina University in Saudi Arabia, a PhD from Birmingham University and an LLB from Punjab University. He is a mufassir, muhaddith and faqih specialising in ilm al-tafsir, usul al-tafsir, philosophy and logic among other disciplines. He is fluent in several languages including English, Arabic, Urdu and Persian.
Al-Shaykh al-Sayyid Abdul-Qadir has opened a number of institutions teaching the classical tradition sciences that form part of the mainstream moderate Islamic education such as Dar al-Ulum Qadria Jilania at Tench Bhatta, Rawalpindi and Dar al-Ulum Qadria Jilania in London, UK.
He is a guide of the spiritual Sufi path of the Qadri order and has thousands of disciples all over the world.
Al-Shaykh Abdul-Qadir leads the largest annual procession in the UK to commemorate the birth of the Holy Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam).
He currently presides over the Markazi Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a organisation.
http://www.peaceforhumanity.co.uk/speakers#9
Now that our readers will see that the above mentioned personality is not some unknown, irrelevant personality, allow us to cite what he has stated his book ‘Zubda tul Tahqeeq’ pages 61-65:
More research regarding his being first Muslim
(1). Narrated by Umar (ra): ‘It was me, Abu Ubaida (ra) and Abu Bakr (ra) and a group of companions when Holy Prophet (s) put his hand upon Ali’s shoulders and said: ‘O Ali, you are the first believer in respect of faith (Iman) and the first Muslim in respect of Islam and your relationship to me as the same as that of Harun (as) and Musa (as).
The evidence in this tradition regarding Ali Murtadha (ra) being the first Muslim that comes from the tongue of Umar Farooq (ra) is sufficient to prove the authenticity of the tradition.
(2). Hadhrat Zaid bin Arqam (ra) narrated: ‘The first person to bring Islam was Ali bin Abi Talib’ This tradition has been recorded by Imam Ahmed as well as by Imam Tirmidhi.
(3). Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated: ‘Ali was the first person to being Islam after Khadija. Ibn Umar has stated that the chain of this tradition is Sahih and there isn’t single narrator in its chain upon whom some comments or arguments have been made. And this tradition is in contradiction to the tradition of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) wherein he has narrated about Hadhrat Abu Bakar Sideeq (ra) being first Muslim. Then to clarify this, the correct (Sahih) view is that Hadhrat Abu Bakar Sideeq (was not the first Muslim) rather he was the first one to profess Islam as it has just previously been mentioned in this very chapter. The same has likewise been stated by Mujahid as well as other scholars about whom we have already discussed (Riyadh al-Nudhera, Volume 3 page 110).
(4). Muadh Adwiyah has narrated: ‘I heard Ali saying from the pulpit in Basra: ‘I am Sideeq al-Akbar. I had brought Islam before Abu Bakr’’. This tradition has been recorded by Ibn Qubtiba in Al-Maarif. (Riyadh al-Nudhera, Volume 3 page 110).
The one who testifies to the prophethood and messengership of the Prophet Muhammad (s) will be termed as Sideeq while the statement of Haider Karaar i.e. ‘ I am Sideeq al-Akbar’ would mean that I was the first person to testify to the prophethood and messengership of Prophet Muhammad (s) that is why its only me who is Sideeq al-Akbar.
(5). Abu Dhar Ghaffari narrated: ‘I heard the Prophet Muhamad (s) saying to Ali: ‘You are the first person to bring Islam and testify about me’’ Recorded by al-Hakim. (Riyadh al-Nudhera, Volume 3 page 110).
(6). Hadhrat Salman Farsi narrated: ‘The first amongst this nation to meet the Holy Prophet (s) at the pond of Kauthar will be Ali bin Abi Talib. This means, Maula Ali Murtudha (ra) who was the first person to bring Islam will also be the the first one to meet the Holy Prophet (s) at the pond of Kauthar. (Riyadh al-Nudhera, Volume 3 page 110).
(7). It has similarly been reported in yet another tradition that the first amongst you to reach the pond of Kauthar will be that same individual that first brought Islam, namely Ali bin Abi Talib.
(8). Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated: ‘Those who are foremost ones are three, Yusha bin Nun who was the foremost in approaching Musa (i.e. he was the first one to recite his Kalma). Secondly, it is the ‘Sahib Yasthe een’ who was the foremost with respect to Isa (i.e. he was the first to accept the Deen of Isa) and the third one is Ali Murtudha who was he foremost in respect of the Holy Prophet (i.e. he was the first to accept the Deen of the Holy Prophet).
The same tradition has also been recorded by Ibn Kathir in his commentary of verse 10 of Surah Waqiya and the same tradition has also been recorded by Imam Ibn Hajar Makki from Syeda Ayesha Sideeqa (ra) and Ibn Abbas (ra) in his book Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, page 125.
‘Zubda tul Tahqeeq, page 61
Note: The tradition of Zaid bin Arqam relied upon by the abovementioned Sunni scholar from Tirmidhi, has been declared as ‘Hasan Sahih’ by Imam Tirmidhi. And the tradition of Salman Farsi, it is also recorded in Majma al-Zawaid, Hadith 99541 and al-Haythami has stated that Tabarani has narrated it through Thiqa narrators.
Then we also have the following Sahih narration from Imam Hasan (as) recorded by al-Haythami in Majma al-Zawaid, Hadith 14603:
وعن الحسن وغيره قال: فكان أول من آمن علي بن أبي طالب وهو ابن خمس عشرة أو ست عشرة سنة. رواه الطبراني ورجاله رجال الصحيح.
Hasan and others have narrated that Ali bin Abi Talib was the first to bring Islam and he was ten years of age at that time. Tabarani has narrated it with narrators that are Sahih.
We also have the following words of our Holy Prophet (s) spoken to Fatima Zahra (sa) as recorded in Majma al-Zawaid, Hadith 59541:
”أما ترضين أن أزوجك أقدم أمتي سلماً، وأكثرهم علماً، وأعظمهم حلماً؟”.
“Are you not satisfied with that I am marrying you to one who is the first in Islam; the most knowledgeable and the most patient?”
al-Haythami has stated about this tradition:
رواه أحمد والطبراني وفيه خالد بن طهمان وثقه أبو حاتم وغيره، وبقية رجاله ثقات.
“Narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani with Khalid bin Tehman who has been declared Thiqa by Abu Hatim; the rest are are Thiqa narrators.”
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
if we were to claim that the Caliphate must go to the one who converted first to Islam, then definitely Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the most deserving. It is agreed by all that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the first man of sound and mature mind to accept Islam after the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). At the time of his conversion, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was a child whereas Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was an adult. Additionally, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) is credited with being the only one who did not hesitate before converting.
This just exposes the Nawasib mentality of Ibn al Hashimi, one wherein any merit of Ali (as) is explained away in some feeble manner. Now you might well insist that Ali (as) was a child so of less of sound and mature mind that the adult Abu Bakr, but our question is simple, did the Prophet (s) treat Ali (as) in that manner? Certainly not, the very first invitation to Islam was that before the relatives of Rasulullah (s) when he (s) was instructed “And warn your tribe of near kindred…” (26: 214), he (s) summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech:
“Al-Fadl bin Sahl- Afan bin Muslim- Abu Awana- Uthman bin al-Mughira- Abi Sadeq- Rabeea bin Najed narrated that a man came to Ali and said: ‘Oh commander of believers, why only you inherited your cousin while excluding your uncle?’ He (Ali) replied: ‘The messenger of Allah invited the children of Abdulmutalib and he cooked for them food, they ate till they get fulfilled and the food remained as if no one had touched it, then he (the prophet) brought water and all of them drank from it, but the water remained as if no one had touched it or drank from it.
Then he (the prophet) said: ‘Oh children of Abdulmutalib, I have been sent to you specially and to the people in general, and you saw the sign of that, therefore who among you give baya to be my brother, my companion, my inheritor and my minister.’
No one responded for that, hence I responded and I was the youngest among them, he (the prophet) said: ‘Sit down’ for three times. I responded and He say ‘Sit down’, till the third time he clapped by his hand on my thigh and said: ‘You are my brother, companion, inheritor and minister’. Hence I inherited my cousin without my uncle.’”
Khasais by Imam Nesai, page 85
al-Fadal bin Sahl: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p11). Afan bin Muslim: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p679). Abu Awana: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p282). Uthman bin al-Mughira: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p665). Abu Sadeq al-Azdi: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2, p417). Rabeea bin Najed: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p298).
Now if Imam Ali (as) was a mere child, whose thinking ability and maturity was likewise of a child, why didn’t Rasulullah (s) interpret Imam Ali (as)’s offer of assistance as the mere exuberance of an excited minor and tell him to sit back down? Rasulullah (s) accepted the offer of support, appointed him as his brother, companion, inheritor and minister? Would Rasulullah (s) really appoint a mere child as his minister?
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Having stated that, the Shia propagandists have adopted a very simplistic approach to things. Leadership is not simply doled out to those who converted first. If that is the case, even if we accept the less strong view that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the second or third male convert to Islam, then should we argue that after Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , the person with the most right to the Caliphate was Zaid bin Haritha (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as opposed to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) ?
The Shia claim that after Ali (رضّى الله عنه) it was Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) who had the most right to the Caliphate; yet, there were many other Sahabah alive then who came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) were even born. Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) was the fourth or fifth male convert to Islam. Should he not then–based on the Shia logic–have had a right to the Caliphate over and above that of Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) ? And yet, the Shia scorn Abdur-Rahman (رضّى الله عنه) referring to him as a Nasibi! And what about Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) , who was born much before Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) ? Why then do the Shia claim that Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) usurped the right of Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) when in fact Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) came into the folds of Islam far before Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) was even born?
In any case, the bottom line point is that if the Shia are trying to imply that the leadership must go to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because he was the first male convert to Islam, then the Shia abandon their claims that Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) must be the second Caliph due to the fact that there were many Sahabah who preceded Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) in their conversion to Islam. In other words, this sort of logic would nullify the Shia claim that the succession of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) follows the line of their twelve Imams.
Ibn al Hashimi seems to have forgotten that this simplistic approach was advanced by Abu Bakr and we are simply arguing on the basis of what he said. This is not our argument it was that of Abu Bakr’s and we thank Ibn al Hashimi for showing how futile that argument was. And in order to remind Ibn al-Hashimi as well as his readership to whom he try hardest to deceive, we Shias do not believe that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was entitled to leadership because he was first to enter Islam, we believe that he was successor of the Prophet appointed by none other than him.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Once again, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was making a general comment about the Muhajirs as a whole. That is why he put forward Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) as candidates for the Caliphate as opposed to himself. If Abu Bakr’s words meant what the Shia imply, then surely it would have been non-sensical for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to put forward Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who had converted to Islam much after many of the Muslims. Based on this fact, we can see that Abu Bakr’s words are being twisted by the Shia propagandists who do not care to reflect on what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) truly meant, which was simply that the Muhajirs–including Ali (رضّى الله عنه) –were a group that preceded the Ansars in their service to Islam.
Yes he was arguing a general right, but the Ansar were only given three individuals to choose from amongst the Ansar. It is like visiting a showroom wherein the sale closes in one hour the salesman is advocating the excellence of Japanese cars over others due to their reliability, longevity, sustainability but one it come to what model is available, the customer is only shown two to choose from. In the same way the customer was not given others to choose from, rather could only select from those on offer in the show room at that time, Abu Bakr may well have advanced general arguments of superiority, but when it came to choice, the Ansar had only three individuals to chose from!
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
It was not simply that they converted to Islam first, but rather that their earlier conversion allowed them to accrue more good deeds in the service of Islam; in other words, the Muhajirs were superior to the Ansars because they (the Muhajirs) had done more for Islam over a longer period of time. Therefore, even if we assume that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) converted to Islam a few days before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , this does not mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam than Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , and we come to this conclusion based upon the insignificance of one or two days. Had Ali (رضّى الله عنه) preceded Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) in Islam by years and years, then this would make more sense to say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had accrued more good deeds in the service of Islam, but how can we say this when it could only be a few more days at most? In any case, the strongest position is that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) preceded Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the faith, and this is therefore a non-issue even by Shia logic.
Ibn al Hashimi has presented extremely fautly logic. It is not necessary for an individual that was Muslim for eighty years to have more good deeds that a revert of forty years. The revert during the short space of time may have committed far greater deeds, paid zakat, performed Hajj kept aloof from sins, whilst the Muslim from birth did the exact opposite. If Ibn al Hashimi is however fond of advancing this argument, then as per the testimony of Imam Ali (as) himself he offered salat seven years before others, meaning he had a seven year head start over Abu Bakr in good deeds!
Even if for arguments sake we accept Abu Bakr had a plethora of good deeds that as per his books are greater than those of Imam Ali (as), ultimately the value / significance of a good deeds is far weightier than the number, and one tradition will suffice to debase this argument, Mufti Ghulam Rasul al-Hanafi quotes in Hasab Aur Nasab Volume 3 page 70 recited by Rasulullah (s) after the slaying of Amr bin Abdawud at Khanduq:
“The combat fought by Ali at Khandaq supersedes the deeds of the entire Ummah until the Day of Judgment” (Mustadrak al-Hakim Volume 3 page 32).
This was also an incorrect assertion of Abu Bakr. No one suffered greater trials and tribulations than the Banu Hashim. In terms of trials none is a greater test than jihad on the battlefield and Ali (as)’s unremitting bravery in all battles cannot be surpassed. He was at the forefront of every battle never fleeing the battlefield in Uhud he had sixty wounds and the battles of Khunduq and Khayber were both won at his hands.
Ibn al Hashimi makes the following risible claim:
Not according to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself! We read:
Ali replied and said again: “Tell me the name of the most valiant person.”
“We don’t know,” all of them replied.
“Abu Bakr is the most valiant,” Ali replied, and added: “On the day of Badr, we had erected a hut for the Messenger of Allah. We then asked each other as to who will accompany the Prophet to save him from the onslaught of the Mushrikeen. By Allah, none of us had the courage to offer his services. But Abu Bakr stood alone drawing his sword and (he) allowed no one to draw near the Prophet; and whoever attempted an attack on the Prophet, (he) came under the charge of Abu Bakr.”
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.268)
The said tradition is weak as al-Haythami said in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 47I:
‘It contains narrators who I don’t know’
If this Nasibi is fond of relying upon the words of Maula Ali (as) then allow us to cite his words from Madarij un Nubuwwah, Volume 2 pages 210-211:
When Muslims were defeated and they abandoned the Holy Prophet (s) and He (s) got in an emotional state, with sweat trickling come down from his blessed forehead, whilst in this condition he saw Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) standing beside him (s). He (s) asked: ‘What is it, why didn’t you join your brothers?’. He (ra) replied: ‘You cannot revert to kufr after Iman (faith)’.
There was therefore one point wherein all fled save Ali (as), so how can Abu Bakr be braver than him? The facts are as follows:
On the day (of the battle) of Khaibar the Prophet said, “Tomorrow I will give the flag to somebody who will be given victory (by Allah) and who loves Allah and His Apostle and is loved by Allah and His Apostle.” So, the people wondered all that night as to who would receive the flag and in the morning everyone hoped that he would be that person. Allah’s Apostle asked, “Where is ‘Ali?” He was told that ‘Ali was suffering from eye-trouble, so he applied saliva to his eyes and invoked Allah to cure him. He at once got cured as if he had no ailment. The Prophet gave him the flag. ‘Ali said, “Should I fight them till they become like us (i.e. Muslim)?” The Prophet said, “Go to them patiently and calmly till you enter the land. Then, invite them to Islam, and inform them what is enjoined upon them, for, by Allah, if Allah gives guidance to somebody through you, it is better for you than possessing red camels.”
Whilst we acknowledge that the Muhajireen as a group experienced trials with the Prophet (saaws) but none suffered as much persecution than the tribe of Banu Hashim, it was this tribe, which had experienced greater trials and tribulations.
At the beginning of the Holy Prophet (saaws)’s mission the Quraysh conspired to place pressure on his family, this is what we find in Tabari:
“the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka’bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, The Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but Abu Lahab ‘Abd al Uzza b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went to the Quraysh supporting them against Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them”
Is there a greater trial than a complete ostracization that left the Prophet (saaws) and his family to the mercy of the Quraysh, where they had to experience famine? None of the Muhajireen suffered like this. Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar had embraced Islam but they were not punished in any way; the boycott did not effect them, they could go about their daily business, the untold sufferings lay squarely on the Prophet (saaws)’s relatives the tribes of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib”
Ibn al-Hashimi:
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is well-known that the Prophet’s relatives (namely Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib) were largely insulated from the brunt of the persecution, due to the patronage of Abu Talib. We read:
When the Apostle saw the affliction of his Sahabah and that though he escaped it because of his standing with Allah and his uncle Abu Talib, [and] he (the Prophet) could not protect them, he (the Prophet) said to them: “If you were to go to Abyssinia (it would be better for you)…” This was the first Hijra in Islam. The first of the Muslims to go were (among) Banu Umayyah: Uthman bin Affan with his wife Ruqayyah, the daughter of the Apostle…
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.146)
Elsewhere, we read:
His (the Prophet’s) uncle (Abu Talib)–and the rest of Banu Hashim–gathered round him and protected him from the attacks of the Quraish…
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.161)
Perhaps Ibn al Hashimi could enlighten us on what the terms of the social boycott were? This was a boycott wherein the all members of then Banu Hashim were treated as persona non grata. So extreme was the persecution that they left en masse and hid in Shib Abi Talib, when the terms of the boycott began to bite, since there was a prohibition on trading with the tribe, either in terms of buying or selling meaning that they had to suffer from starvation. It is truly amazing that Ibn al Hashimi fails to cite this, rather he seems to portray matters as if there was no persecution whatsoever, as Abu Talib (as) was their protector, meaning they all lived a jovial life, eating lavishly and partaking in recreational activities whilst all around them suffered!
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
As even a novice Islamic historian knows, the brunt of the persecution was against those lower class Muslims who had no tribal protection. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was from the higher class and was fortunate enough to have the protection of his father, Abu Talib, who was one of the leaders of the Quraish. Because of this patronage, the Quraish infidels were not able to persecute Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the same vicious manner that they did to those Muslims of the lower class who had no tribal protection. On the other hand, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was left with no such patronage. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was one of the unfortunates who was persecuted so much that he had to flee to Abyssinia; on the way there, however, Ibn al-Dughunna–the leader of the Ahabish–offered to protect Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . In other words, Ibn al-Dughunna became Abu Bakr’s patron just as Abu Talib was Ali’s patron. However, some of the Quraish complained to Ibn al-Dughunna about how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was preaching the faith to the young, the weak, and the slaves. Ibn al-Dughunna told Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) that if he wanted to be protected, he would have to refrain from preaching the faith. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused and Ibn al-Dughunna withdrew his patronage of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . Ibn al-Dughunna’s abandonment left Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) without a patron, and open to the persecution of the Quraish. We read:
When the situation inMeccabecame serious and the Apostle and his Sahabah suffered ill-treatment from the Quraish, Abu Bakr asked the Apostle’s permission to emigrate (toAbyssinia), and he (the Prophet) agreed. So Abu Bakr set forth and when he had gone a day or two’s journey fromMecca, he fell in with Ibn al-Dughunna…who was at the time the head of the Ahabish. Replying to Ibn al-Dughunna’s inquiries, Abu Bakr told him that his people had driven him out and ill-treated him. “But why?” he (Ibn al-Dughunna) exclaimed, “when you are an ornament of the tribe, a standby in misfortune, always ready in supplying the wants of others? Come back with me under my protection.” So he (Abu Bakr) went back with him and Ibn al-Dughunna publically proclaimed that he had taken him (Abu Bakr) under his protection and none must treat him other than well.
…Some men of the Quraish went to Ibn al-Dughunna saying: “Have you given this fellow protection so that he can injure us? Lo, he prays and reads what Muhammad has produced…we fear he may seduce our youths and women and weak ones. Go to him and tell him to go to his own house and do what he likes there (i.e. to stop preaching to others).” So Ibn al-Dughunna went to him (Abu Bakr) and said: “I did not give you protection so that you might injure your people. They dislike the place you have chosen (to pray and read Quran), and they suffer therefrom, so go into your house and do what you like there.” Abu Bakr asked him if he wanted him to renounce his protection and when he (Ibn al-Dughunna) said that he did, he (Abu Bakr) gave him back his gaurantee (i.e. absolved Ibn al-Dughunna of all responsibility). Ibn al-Dughunna got up and told the Quraish that Abu Bakr was no longer under his protection and that they could do what they liked with him…as Abu Bakr was going to the Ka’abah, one of the loutish fellows of the Quraish met him (Abu Bakr) and threw dust on his head.
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.171)
Because of this, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) suffered more directly than did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who was fortunate enough to have the protection and patronage of Abu Talib. Furthermore, if we read Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah–or any Seerah, for that matter–we find that the worst to be persecuted were the slaves who converted to Islam, including Bilal (رضّى الله عنه) . And it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who suffered along with these early slave converts, and it was he who spent from his own wealth to buy them their freedom. We read:
The Mushrikeen persecuted the Muslims of the lower class…(the Mushrikeen) attacked them, imprisoning them, and beating them, allowing them no food or drink, and exposing them to the burning heat of Mecca…Bilal, who was afterwards freed by Abu Bakr but at that time belonged to one of B. Jumah, being slave born, was a faithful Muslim…Bilal being the seventh (emancipated by Abu Bakr)…
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, pp.143-144)
And after the slaves, there were others who were free but had no tribal protection or were weak that suffered the most. These were the Muslims who were eventually forced to flee toAbyssinia. Answering-Ansar has quoted a narration in al-Tabari, but only half of it! If we read the first half of that very same narration, we can clearly see why Answering-Ansar deceitfully avoided reproducing that. We read:
When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia had settled down in the land of the Negus and were living in security, Quraysh conferred together about taking some action against those Muslims who had taken refuge there…
Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a staunch, sturdy, and mighty warrior, had accepted Islam, as had Hamzah b. `Abd. al-Muttalib before him, and the Messenger of God’s Companions began to feel stronger. Islam had begun to spread among the clans, and the Negus had given protection to those Muslims who had taken refuge in his country. When all of these things happened, the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them.
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.6, p.105)
There are therefore two key points here: firstly, those Muslims who were suffering the most were forced to flee to Abyssinia; included in this group that made Hijra to Abyssiniawere Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) and his wife. If the Shia claim that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had a right to the Caliphate based upon the trials and tribulations he faced, then why should the Shia take issue with Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) being the third Caliph before Ali (رضّى الله عنه) when it is well-known that Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) suffered more during those times? Truly, the Shia logic is faulty and full of holes.
There were members of Banu Umayyah–the same Banu Umayyah hated by the Shia–who were forced to emigrate to Abyssiniafor fear of their lives as their families had turned them out, unlike those of Banu Hashim who were protected by their family, namely Abu Talib. The Shia propagandists oftentimes denounce the Umayyads based on the fact that there were people from amongst the Umayyads who fought Islam in the early days even up until the fall of Mecca. And yet, this is a hasty conclusion: we see that there were many Umayyads, like Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) , who converted to Islam in the early days and who were turned out by their families and clan just like the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would be turned out from his tribe, the Quraish. To condemn Banu Umayyah based on the Shia logic would be equivalent to condemning all of the Quraish; it should be remembered that despite the fact that the Quraish leaders were the staunchest enemies of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself was Quraishi!
The problem is this is nothing to do with what the Shia claim, we were merely pointing out that Abu Bakr’s claim could be logically debunked by the fact that the Bani Hashim were severely persecuted when the mission of Muhammad (s) was in its embryonic stage, whilst Abu Bakr was merely alluding to himself. If Abu Bakr was citing trials and tribulations and grounds for Caliphate then by that token we could present the trials and tribulations of the Banu Hashim
We can find no argument either from the Qur’an or the Sunnah that failure to follow the Muhajireen leads to a person going astray.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
No argument from the Quran or the Sunnah? How about multiple Hadith? The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:
“Our political authority shall remain with the Quraish. In this matter, whoever opposes them as long as they follow Islam, Allah shall cast him face down in Hell.”
(Bukhari: Kitabu’l-Ahkam)
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had told the Ansar:
“In this matter (i.e. of leadership), bring forward the Quraish and do not try to supersede them.”
(Talkhisu’l-Hubayr, vol.2, p. 26)
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:
“After me, the political authority (imamah) shall be transferred to the Quraish.”
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183)
And it was this very fact that was the basis of Abu Bakr’s argument. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had told Saad (رضّى الله عنه) of the Ansar:
“O Saad! You know very well that the Prophet had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arabs follow their nobles and their ignobles follow their ignobles.”
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 1, p.5)
Abu Bakr was advocating the religious duty to follow the Muhajirin not the Quraish per se. The emigrants comprised of disparate peoples, including Quraish and non Quraish all that left with Rasulullah (s), and it was the Muhajirin that (as per the comments) had a duty to be followed, we therefore invite Ibn al Hashimi to show us an authentic Hadith wherein Rasulullah (s) set out a religious duty to follow the Muhajrin. This argument was made without any concrete proof.
The reality is even the Muhajireen could go astray if they failed to follow two sources which the Prophet (saaws) made clear at Arafat, if the companions followed them (whether they be Ansar or Muhajireen) they would never go astray, the two sources were the Qur’an and the Ahlul’bayt. We know that Imam Ali (as) was the leader of the Ahlul’bayt, guidance was at their door and at no one else’s, why else would the Prophet (saaws) had said “I am Warner and Ali is the guide, he (saaws) then turned to Ali and said “Ali people will be guided through you” 1. This argument also holds no water.
Mustadrak, by al Hakim, Vol 3 hadith 129 & 130
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Answering-Ansar almost had it right until they said that the two sources are the Quran and Ahlel Bayt. The two sources are Quran and the Sunnah. And definitely, we agree that the Muhajirs were to be followed only so long as they followed these two. To this effect, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had said in the Hadith we reproduced above that the Muhajirs were to be followed “as long as they follow Islam.” And the Muhajirs definitely followed Islam, so that is the end of the matter.
The words of Rasulullah (s) at the final pilgrimage were to follow the Quran and Ahlul Bayt, their salvation depended on adhering to both sources of guidance, their prevention from going astray was dependent on following both. You can only follow something if you make that thing your ‘leader’ If for example you go on a journey, and have a guide with you, you will make sure that the guide remains at the front and others follow him, you don’t leave the guide two steps behind you. It is common sense that if Rasulullah (s) told the Ummah to follow the Quran and Ahlul Bayt, it could only be acted on if both sources were appointed as leaders in that the Ummah they could only be followed if they were placed at the helm of the Ummah with remainder following behind them, which is why we find these hadith in Sunni works:
ثنا أبو بكر ثنا عمرو بن سعد أبو داود الحفري عن شريك عن الركين عن القاسم بن حسان عن زيد بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن تارك فيكم الخليفتين من بعدي كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض
Zaid bin Thabit said that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “I am leaving among you two successors (Caliphs) after me, the Qur’an and my progeny Ahlul’bayt, they will never separate from one another until they meet me at the pool”.
1. al-Sunnah, by Ibn Abi Asim, page 337
3. al-Mujam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, v5, p154
3. Ma Ruwyah fi Khabar al-Hawz, by Imam Qurtubi, page 138
5. Zilal al-Janah, by Al-Albani who declared it ‘Sahih’, hadith 754
We read in Musnad Ahmad, Volume 5 page 182:
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا الأسود بن عامر ثنا شريك عن الركين عن القاسم بن حسان عن زيد بن ثابت قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم انى تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض
Zaid bin Thabit said the Prophet (s) said: “I am leaving among you two successors (Caliphs), the book of Allah that is a rope connected to the heavens and the earth, and my progeny Ahlul’bayt, they will never separate until they meet me at the pool ”.
Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout in his margin of the book Musnad Ahmed declared the tradition as ‘Sahih be Shwahedeh’. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in Al-Jame’a al-Saghir, v1 p402 and Imam Nasiruddin Al-Baani in Sahih al-Jame’a, Hadith 4222 declared it ‘Sahih’ while Imam Al-Haythami said: ‘The chain is Jaiyad’ (Majm’a al-Zawaed, v9 p162).
Imam Tabarani records in Al-Muj’am al-Kabir, Volume 5 page 154:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بن مَسْعُودٍ الْمَقْدِسِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا الْهَيْثَمُ بن جَمِيلٍ ، وَحَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بن الْقَاسِمِ بن مُسَاوِرٍ الْجَوْهَرِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا عِصْمَةُ بن سُلَيْمَانَ الْخَزَّازُ ، وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو حُصَيْنٍ الْقَاضِي ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى الْحِمَّانِيُّ ، قَالُوا : حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ ، عَنِ الرُّكَيْنِ بن الرَّبِيعِ ، عَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بن حَسَّانَ ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بن ثَابِتٍ ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : إِنِّي قَدْ تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ خَلِيفَتَيْنِ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ وَأَهْلَ بَيْتِي ، وَإِنَّهُمَا لَمْ يَفْتَرِقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ
Zaid bin Thabit said that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “I am leaving among you two successors (Caliphs), the book of Allah and Ahlul’bayt, they will never separate until they meet me at the pool ”.
Imam Abi Bakar Al-Haythami said: “The narrators are reliable” (Majm’a al-Zawaid, v1, p170).
As for Ibn al-Hashimi’s version to the ‘Quran and AhlulBayt’ version of Hadith Thaqlayn and his spontaneous citation of ‘Quran and Sunnah’ version, we would like to advance the words of present day Salafi scholar Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki who in his book “Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed”, page 71 stated:
(…كتاب الله وسنتي) وهو حديث ضعيف عند محققي أهل السنة
“(…The book of Allah and my Sunnah) this is a weak tradition according to scholars of Ahle Sunnah”
It is clear that the four arguments have no weighting whatsoever. If readers remain sceptical on this matter then we will quote the words of Imam Ali (as) himself who through his eloquent writing dismisses all four grounds. The extract of this letter is taken from the Sunni work Iqd al Fareed. Imam Ali (as) wrote this letter during his period of reign. It was written as a detailed refutation to of the comments made by Mu’awiya in a letter to him. We have copied this letter from the book ‘Letters of Hadrat Ali Mutaza (R.A.A.)’ complied by the Sunni scholar Muhammad Ayub Khan:
“I swear! I hope when Allah will award people will award people in accordance with their service and sanctity to Islam, Allah and His Messenger, the greatest share will be ours, the family of the Holy Prophet (SAW) because we, the family members of the Prophet (SAW) have been first to accept the faith and testify his Prophethood when he invited the people to accept the Faith and believe in Oneness of Allah. Thus in no time we got the exalted and respected position. None of the Arab inhabitants save us worshipped Allah.
Observing this our people conspired to assassinate our Holy Prophet (SAW) and uproot us. Accordingly they hatched deep conspiracies and took many drastic steps (against us). They restrained our movements, withheld our economic activities, exposed us to constant fear and danger, posted spies and guards on us, compelled us to move towards desolate barren mountains, fanned the fore of battle against us and made written agreements between themselves that none should provide us means nor establish matrimonial relations, nor transact any business with us. Nobody should offer us shelter or protection unless we hand over the Messenger oh Allah (SAW) to them for assassination and amputation. We could secure peace during the Hajj days only)
But Allah, the Almighty, bestowed on us the courage to protect and guard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) from the danger of those days, defend him, shoot arrows against enemies to save his honor and draw sword in his support. In this struggle the object of our faithfulness was to gain recompense from Allah only, and those of the infidels, the object was to help their families. It was clear that among Quraish those who had embraced Islam were safe from atrocities, which beset us, because some of them were protected (by their infidel allies) under the previous agreements and others belonged to the tribes, which were their protectors. Therefore, they remained safe from the destruction and killings we suffered. The major succor for us was the Will of Allah.
Then Allah ordained his Prophet (SAW) for migration and thereafter, allowed them to fight against the infidels. During the peak hours of the battles when people wanted to keep themselves safe and the enemy would throw challenge to combat, he (SAW) would advance his family members to meet them. Thus he (SAW) saved his companions from the swords and the spears of the enemy. Consequently Ubaida ibn Haris (RAA) fell martyr in the battle of Badr, Hamza (RAA) in the battle of Uhud, and Jafar and Zaid (RAA) in the battle of Mauta; and if you like I might name another person (meaning himself) who, like these martyrs many a time yearned to earn martyrdom while fighting along with the Prophet (SAW) (in battles). But the death hastened in the case of those martyrs and deferred in my case. Their adoption of virtue was due to Allah’s Kindness and Favor. Thereafter, I neither heard of nor seen any one who excelled those persons whose names I have given to you. For sincerity and obedience to Allah and his Prophet (SAW) none could match them to face hardship in adversity or prosperity, in battles or other occasions of danger in the company of Holy Prophet (SAW) Mohajireen possess many other outstanding qualities and Allah will compensate for their noble deeds.
It is pity that time has so changed that now that man who is neither superior to me nor has any superiority (in Islam) over me, which none possesses except me is rising in opposition.
It is, therefore, not strange that any claimant may claim (for anything) not known to me may claim for anything not known to me or not in my opinion, in the knowledge of Allah. In all circumstances we must praise Allah.
Then you have mentioned my bearing malice against the Caliphs, my late offering of oath of allegiance to them and revolt against them, I seek the refuge of Allah from revolt ( I definitely did not commit it). As regards my late approach for oath of allegiance and disapproval of their Caliphate, it is not for me to offer any apology to people because Allah has already made a decision (on Caliphate) at the time of the passing away of the Holy Prophet (SAW). (That is to say) when the Quraish claimed leadership for their group while the Ansar (local inhabitants of Madinah) for themselves, the latter handed over the Caliphate and government to the emigrants on yielding to their plea that Holy Prophet (SAW) belonged to them, therefore, they were more deserving for the leadership. Consequently when they (emigrants) established their right for Caliphate vis-a-vis Ansar on the basis of their relationship with the Holy Prophet (SAW) then one who would be nearer in relationship with the Prophet (SAW) would also be more deserving for that Caliphate. In the absence of this principle the Ansar were more rightful to the Caliphate on the basis of their majority. (Now) I fail to understand whether my companions (the emigrants) have been absolved to the charge of snatching my right or have done injustice to Ansar. But nay I have deduced that my right was snatched and I have abandoned my right in their favor for Allah’s pleasure. May Allah forgive them”.
Ali (as) clarifies the matter clearly, he refutes all the grounds of superiority, which the three companions had advanced at the Saqifa and states that his right was usurped. The fact that this letter exists in the works of a recognized Sunni scholar immediately causes confusion amongst the Ahl’ul Sunnah who believe that the Prophet (saaws) did not appoint a successor. Its existence has perplexed the mind, and in order to dismiss it the translator of this letter M. Ayub Khan tries to ease the Sunni mind by providing the following commentary in the footnote of this letter:
“There is a wide difference on this point between two important sects of Muslims. Sunnis say that Islam is a democratic system and there is no room for family succession or heirdom. Ansar gave up their claim for Caliphate as they agreed that Muhajireen (emigrants) deserved more for Caliphate as they were heralds of believers and first among Muslims. They also agreed that Hadrat Abu Bakr (RAA) apart from his services and sacrifices for Islam was the officially nominated one for the Caliphate by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself. He was the only Muslim who led the prayers during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself even when in his presence. Had the relation with the Holy Prophet (SAW) been the criteria of Caliphate, Hadrat Usman (RAA) deserved more as he had married two daughters of the Holy Prophet (SAW) while Hadrat Ali (RAA) married only one daughter.
Moreover, Holy Qur’an has categorically refused the family relation without the merit of Faith (Iman) and good deeds. In this respect example of father of Hadrat Ibrahim (s) son of Hadrat Nooh (as) wife of Hadrat Loot (as) and uncle of Holy Prophet (SAW) have been cited repeatedly.
While Shias say that Islamic system is based on family succession and heirship. In this regard they present the claim of Hadrat Ali and his associates”.
Al Iqd al Fareed Vol 2, pg 19, by Ibn Rabbih taken from Letters of Hadrat Ali Murtaza (RAA), translated by Muhummud Ayub Khan pages 14-19.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Once again, Answering-Ansar attempts to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an “authentic Sunni text.” Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow Answering-Ansar will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. The author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.
Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means “the Peakof Eloquence”; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus (عليه السلام) but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded! The Shia spent excessive ammounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and forging his responses to Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) ; so no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic.
Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive “Sunnis” who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? Not every word written by a “Sunni” can be construed as being “authoratative” or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.
The entire letter quoted by Answering-Ansar is a fabrication. Absolutely no Isnad is given, and it can therefore not even be accepted by the Shia. As for the content of the fabricated letter, we have already addressed every single point. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did in fact suffer at the hands of the Quraish, but not as much as Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) . Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was in fact one of the first to convert to Islam, but Abu Bakr’s conversion came before that. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was very close to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), but the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said in both of the Sahihayn that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the most loved by him after Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). Even by the defunct logic of the Shia, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was superior to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . This is not at all meant as a denigration of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , because we also say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was superior to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , yet nobody would claim that the Ahlus Sunnah hates Umar (رضّى الله عنه) ! In fact, we love all the Sahabah, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were of the ten promised Paradise. However, if we were to rank those amongst the ten promised Paradise, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would be first. After the Prophets and Messengers, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the most superior of people.
It is not really strange for us to see Ibn al-Hashimi undermine rather totally discard a scholar of his own school whose ‘fault’ was that he recorded an account which would favor Ali bin Abi Talib (as). How on earth could a Nasibi would bear this! Try as much as the Nasibi author may, the reality is that Allamah Ibn Abd Rabah and his book Iqd al-Fareed is well respected in Sunni circles even by those quick to criticize such as Imam Dhahabi who in Siyar alam al-Nubala, Volume 15 page 283 said:
وكان موثقا نبيلا
“He was reliable and honorable”
As for the book, one of the Nasibi Imams of Ibn al-Hashimi namely Ibn Kathir stated in Al-Bidaya wa al-Niyhaya, Volume 11 page 219 said:
وكتابه العقد الفريد يدل على فضائل جمة وعلوم كثير مهمة
“His book al-Iqd al-Fareed contains great virtues and significant knowledge”
Abul Fida in his authority work Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, Volume 2 page 92 stated:
وصنف كتاب العقد الفريد وهو من الكتب النفيسة
“He authored a book al-Aqd al-Fareed which is one of the unique books”
And last but not the least, Abu al-Abbas al-Muqree in his authority work Nafkh al-Teeb aan ghusn al-Andlus al-Rateeb, Volume 4 page 217 stated:
وله التاليف المشهور الذي سماه بالعقد وحماه عن عثرات النقد لأنه أبرزه مقف القناة مرهف الشباة
He authored the famous book called al-Iqd, he preserved it from any slips that could be attributed to it, because he made it straight like spear and sharp like a sword.
Moreover if the book is as worthless as Ibn al Hashimi claims, why did Muhammad Ayub Khan a Sunni scholar not just exclude the said letter in his book wherein he collected the letters of Imam Ali (as) and not just that, affirm his belief in its authenticity by stating:
“While Shias say that Islamic system is based on family succession and heirship. In this regard they present the claim of Hadrat Ali and his associates”.
He did not suggest this was a claim falsely attributed to Imam Ali (as) he says says this was the claim of Imam Ali (as), hence his citing it and thereafter commenting on it
We should also point out to Ibn al Hashimi that Salafi scholar Abu’l Hasan Nadvi praised by Bilal Philips in his translation of the anti Shia work “the Mirage in Iran” for proving that the Shia were apostates, authored a book called “The life of Caliph Ali” wherein he rejected the letters attributed to Ali (as) in Nahjul Balagha, but relied on letters from Iqd al Farid!