Abu Bakr was not in Madinah but was at a town called Sunh, upon hearing news of the Prophet (saaws)’s demise he returned to Madinah by horse 1. Meanwhile Umar was seeking to deny this information and was in fact threatening to kill people who said that the Prophet (saaws) was dead 2:
1. Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 5 hadith number 733
2. The history of al-Tabari, Volume 9 p 185 – 186
“Some of the hypocrites allege that the Messenger of God is dead. By God, he is not dead but has gone to his Lord as Moses b. Imran went and remained hidden from his people for forty days. Moses returned after it was said that he had died. By God, the Messenger of God will [also] return and will cut off the hands and feet of those who allege that he is dead”.
The history of al-Tabari, Volume 9 p 184
Note how Umar ascribes to Rasulullah (s) returning having met his Lord, so that is Raj’ah will Nawasib issue an appropriate edicts against him? Now, we would like to know:
Umar was still threatening the inhabitants of Madinah by the time Abu Bakr arrived there. Abu Bakr went in to the house of Ummul Momineen Ayesha, kissed the Prophet (saaws)’s forehead, and thereafter interrupted Umar stating:
“If anyone amongst you used to worship Muhummud (saws) then Muhummud is dead but (if any one of) you used to worship Allah then Allah is alive and shall never die. Allah (swt) said: -
‘Muhummud is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many) apostles have passed away before him…(till the end of the verse)…Allah will reward to those who are thankful’. (3:144)”.
1. Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 5 hadith number 733
2. The history of al-Tabari, Volume 9 p 185 – 186
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Grief Over the Prophet’s Death
The Prophet’s death sent shock waves of grief throughout the Muslim Ummah. We read:
The tragic news (of the Prophet’s death) was soon known by everybody in Medinah. Dark grief spread on all areas and horizons of Medinah…Umar was so stunned (by grief) that he almost loss consciousness.
(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.559)
Umar’s love for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was so great that he was in denial, the first stage of grief. The American Psychiatric Association (AMA) states in “Grief Counseling”:
The first stage of grief is denial of the loss…The thought of permanent loss is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may (thereby psychologically) minimize their loss…
Often the bereaved refuse to face the reality of the loss, and may go through a process of not believing, and pretending that the person is not really dead…This denial can take several forms: Denying the facts of the loss. The bereaved may manifest symptoms that range from slight reality distortions to full blown delusions. There may be attempts to keep the body in the house, retaining possessions ready for use when the deceased returns, or keeping the room of the deceased untouched for years…
The bereaved may invent stories, sometimes so complex as to be bizarre, to explain away the deceased’s absence…in spite of having seen the deceased’s body with one’s own eyes…[we would] intuitively assume that the bereaved would affirm the loss on seeing the deceased’s body or attending the funeral; however, this is not the case: the distortions of reality can sometimes become firmer with such “evidence.” This paradoxical effect is believed to be a result of the intensely emotional and traumatizing nature of such “evidence” (i.e. seeing the dead body) which causes the bereaved to have a flight from reality as a defense mechanism…
The bereaved may at first seem to accept the news of a loved one’s death, but later this may not be the case after having viewed the body (especially if the body is mangled, etc.) or attending the funeral…the more emotional and traumatic the experience, the higher the likelihood…of a flight from reality…
Such people will reject, often violently, any others who seek to affirm the loss that the patient has denied…Anger is a grief reaction commonly associated with denial, usually directed towards the harbinger of the news of the loss as well as those who seek to affirm the loss or those who reject the denial…these people require careful and appropriate grief counseling…
(Grief Counseling, American Psychiatric Association)
Our Shia brothers often bring up Umar’s denial as some sort of proof against him, but if anything, it serves as a strong proof that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) loved the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) so deeply that he could not face this loss of his loved one. And so, it was in the first stage of grief that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) reportedly said in a state of great emotion:
“By Allah, he (the Prophet) is not dead but has gone to his Lord as Musa bin Imran went and remained hidden from his people for forty days. Musa returned after it was said that he had died. By Allah, the Messenger of Allah will (likewise) come back and he will cut off the hands and legs of those who claim his death.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.9, p.184)
This immense love did not evidence itself when the Prophet (s) asked for writing materials so as to commit to pen his eternal will, here Umar questioned the sanity of Rasulullah (s) a fact attested by Ibn al Hashimi’s own beloved Imam Ibn Tamiyah who said in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 6 page 202:
فلما كان يوم الخميس هم أن يكتب كتابا فقال عمر ماله أهجر فشك عمر هل هذا القول من هجر الحمي أو هو مما يقول على عادته فخاف عمر أن يكون من هجر الحمى
“On Thursday he (the Holy Prophet) determined to write a will. But, Umar said: ‘What is wrong with him, is he delirious?’ Umar had doubts if that statement (of the Holy Prophet) was a rave due to illness, or was a regular statement. Thus Umar feared that the Holy Prophet might have been raving due to fever”.
Grief doesn’t just evaporate in seconds, it stays with a sufferer for a considerable period of time. In the case of Umar this ‘grief’ evaporated as soon as Abu Bakr returned from Sukh. This in itself proves that he was making it all up. This fact has been vouched for by Allamah Shibli Numani who says he did so to curtail the machinations of the hypocrites.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
As for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), he was in his home when he heard of the Prophet’s death, and immediately upon hearing this tragic news, he head towards the Prophet’s Mosque in haste. We read:
Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophet’s) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allah’s Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophet’s face and bowed over him and kissed him and wept, saying, “Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you…”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
And in another Hadith, we read:
Abu Bakr kissed the Prophet after his death.
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 734)
So quite contrary to the callous and diabolic view that the Shia are portraying, Abu Bakr’s first action was not at all to rush for the Caliphate, but rather he made haste to visit the Prophet’s body. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was deeply affected by the Prophet’s death, so much so that he broke down in tears whilst kissing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then reassured the Muslims:
“To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but if (anyone of) you used to worship Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die! Allah said: ‘Muhammad is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many) apostles have passed away before him…(till the end of the Verse)…Allah will reward those who are thankful.’ (Quran, 3:144)”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this Verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and all the people received it from him, and I heard everybody reciting it (then).”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“By Allah, when I heard Abu Bakr reciting it, my legs could not support me and I fell down at the very moment of hearing him reciting it, declaring that the Prophet had died.”
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)
So great was Umar’s love for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that he fell down in grief when Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made him come to terms with the reality.
Having cantered through the narrations, it seems the evidence that Ibn al Hashimi has sought reliance upon has thrown up questions that require clarification:
Numani identifies the fact that Umar had personal receipt about a meeting the Ansar were involved in. This was not general information available to all the Sahaba; this was information given privately to Umar:
“It is related by Omar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: ‘O son of Khattab (Omar” pray step out for a moment’. Omar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred i.e., the Ansar were gathering in force in the Thaqifah Bani Sa’idah and, as the situation was grave, it was necessary that he (Omar) should go and look in to the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a war. On this Omar said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go’.
Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 pages 86-87
The modern Sunni scholar Dr Rahim in his simplified analysis of history writes:
“Being informed of the proceedings of the Ansars, Abu Bakr Umar and Abu Ubaidah hastened to the meeting place and were there just in time to interrupt the finalization of the Ansars choice of Sa’d ibn Ubaidah to the successorship of the Prophet. Ali was at that time busy in preparing the coffin of the Prophet, and did not know anything about the meeting of the Ansars to elect a successor”.
A Short history of Islam, by Dr Rahim, page 57, printed Ishaquia Press, Karachi
They set out to go to the Saqifa on the way we read that Abu Ubaydah joins them 1. He did not leave with them from the Prophet (saaws)’s residence so we presume that he must have met them at a specific place. On route two companions whom Hadhrath Umar recounts as “pious fellows” 2 seek to discourage them from proceeding further. They reject the plea and make their way to the Saqifa.
1. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 188, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
2. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 192, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Based on what the Shia have quoted on their very own website, we see that the matter was not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were devastated by the Prophet’s death and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). In fact, “Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet.” Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar (رضّى الله عنه) first informed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused to come out and disregarded Umar (رضّى الله عنه); it was only when Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophet’s side. We read:
Umar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) throughout his funeral, and they were only persuaded to come out because of the warnings of a third man who implored upon them to save the Ummah from civil war. The Ansar were about to declare their own Caliph by force of arms, ready to declare war on any tribe that denied their leadership. The Ansar had adopted a most belligerent attitude and were prepared to declare war; it is this precarious situation that the Shaikhayn sought to diffuse peaceably. We read:
(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Medinah at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.
(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)
A few pertinent questions:
Now turning to Ibn al Hashimi’s defence submission, why did the Shaykhain take it upon themselves to resolve the situation? Moreover how did they know what the precise nature of the discussions that were taking place in Saqifa. Was there some public notification from the mosque of the Prophet (s)? Only one individual disclosed this. Why then was this information not shared with others so that opinion could have been gauged on how best to handle what was a delicate matter?
Did the other mourners not have a right to know of this dire situation? If there was a threat of violence then why didn’t they go armed with men in case the situation required forced to quash the evil plans of the Ansar? The very fact the Shaikhain went themselves evidences the fact they saw no threat, to them all could be resolved through dialogue. So why wasn’t anyone else told of this ‘national emergency’?
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansar were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansar had adopted a very belligerent attitude, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) therefore went as peace-makers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansar from placing themselves at loggerheads with the rest ofArabia.
The Ansar were about to nominate Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. During the Islamic conquest of Mecca, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had given the standard to Saad (رضّى الله عنه). However, when the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saw Saad’s belligerent attitude towards the Quraish, he (the Prophet) took the standard away. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar of the tenth century, writes:
When the Apostle of Allah ordered Saad ibn Ubaadah to enterMeccacarrying the standard, he (Saad) became aggressive towards the people and showed the anger he felt against them. He enteredMeccashouting: “Today is the day of slaughter, the day of capturing any daughter.”
Al-Abbas heard him and asked the Prophet: “Haven’t you heard what Saad ibn Ubaadah is saying? I am afraid that he will attack Quraish fiercely.”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.92)
Upon this, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) took the standard away from Saad (رضّى الله عنه) and gave it to one of the Muhajirs, thereby averting a possible “dispute between the Ansar and the Emigrants (Muhajirs).” (Kitab al-Irshad, p.92) It is clear from this that Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) had a very militant attitude towards the Muhajirs and Quraish in general. He was ready to fight them, and the establishment of his Caliphate would have led to civil war. It was for this reason–Saad’s condescending attitude towards the Meccans–that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) stripped him of the standard and it was also the reason that the Shaikhayn rushed to prevent him from declaring his Caliphate. If Saad (رضّى الله عنه) were to declare his Caliphate, the Muhajirs would protest his nomination on the grounds of his attitude towards them, one of untoward hostility. The Muhajirs would then rush to nominate their own Caliph, and the Ummah would thus be splintered into two rivaling nation-states.
Furthermore, if the Ansar declared their own Caliphate, then nothing would prevent other tribes–not only the Meccans but others–from similarly declaring their own leaders, which would result in a civil war between all the rivaling claimants to the Caliphate. When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) set out for Saqifah, they did so with no intention of seeking the Caliphate for themselves but rather only to prevent the Ansar from doing so by force of arms. The Shaikhayn went as peace-keepers in order to soften the militant attitude adopted by some of the Ansar. The Ansar were pushing the Ummah towards a civil war that could rip apart the nascent Ummah to shreds and lay waste to all the hard work of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who had spent his sweat and blood to unify the ranks of the Muslims.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) took along with them Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه), another Muhajir. These three Sahabah were from amongst the Ashara Mubash Shararah (i.e. the Ten Companions promised Paradise by the Prophet), and it was hoped that the influence of these three great personalities could avert a civil war and disaster. In times of national crisis, the leaders of a country must become strong and steadfast in order to deal with pressing matters of state, and they cannot allow personal woes and feelings to hamper or hinder their effectiveness; if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were alive, he would not want Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to dilly-dally but rather he would indeed want them to act swiftly to save the Muslim Ummah, which would be the best way to honor the memory of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).
We read:
So the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) hurried toward them (the Ansar); they met Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (on the way), and the three of them marched towards them (the Ansar).
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said:
I told Abu Bakr that we should go to our brothers, the Ansar, so we went off to go to them, when two honest fellows met us (on the way) and told us of the conclusion the people (the Ansar) had come to (i.e. to declare their own Caliph). They (the two honest fellows) asked us where we were going, and when we told them, they said that there was no need for us to approach them and we must make our own decision (i.e. elect our own Muhajir Caliph).
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.685)
What he meant by this was what some of the Ansar had said earlier, namely:
“Let us have a leader from amongst ourselves, and you (Quraish) a leader from amongst yourselves.”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
Of course, the Shaikhayn and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) were wise enough to know that this would reduce the Muslim union into nothing but disjointed and warring fiefdoms led by rivaling warlords. The Shaikhayn would in their respective Caliphates transform the Muslim state into a powerful empire that would propel the Muslims to greatness. These two men not only saved Islam from extinction (i.e. at Saqifah) but expanded the Islamic world far and wide, ensuring a unified and stable Muslim empire, an accomplishment which all Muslims worldwide should thank them for.
Some initial observations:
This destroys the notion that the Sahabi were all just, truthful and loved one another. It is an admission that Rasulullah (s) had failed to quell the feudal resentment that existed during the era of jahiliyya.
As for the Shaikhain’s impromptu intervention, why did they view themselves as caretakers for the Ummah? Was no one else entitled to partake in these discussions? Why the assumption that only they could quell the situation?
As for the comment “if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were alive, he would not want Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to dilly-dally but rather he would indeed want them to act swiftly to save the Muslim Ummah”
If he would have expected both men to conduct themselves in the precise manner that had done at Saqifa, why on earth would he have deemed it necessary that both men leaveMedinaforthwith in the army of Usamah? When Abu Bakr and Umar were such influential important individuals when of repute, and why they were after all the father in laws of Rasulullah (s), why did he at such a delicate time insist that his close advisers leave the city and head out in the army of Usamah? Would Rasulullah (s) not have foreseen this risk? Rather than the risk of dilly-dally amongst his successors would the solution to have been to appoint a successor thus negating the need for anyone to in his words dilly-dally? Moreover since when would Rasulullah (s) expect that the need to intervene was one that exclusively belonged to Abu Bakr and Umar? Clearly this was a dispute that was legal / political in nature and there exist a plethora of hadeeth wherein Rasulullah (s) made it clear that no one exceeded Ali (as) in decision making. When there is any form of legal dispute all individuals with an interest have a right to be notified? Was Ali bin Abi Talib (as) not an interested party? Of course, he was the legitimate the heir apparent, if discussions were taking place to remove him from office then there was a duty to notify Ali (as) as such not to scurry away.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Why Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Stayed Behind
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) did not take along Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) because they were immediate relatives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and it would not be fitting to bother them with such a matter during their time of grief. We read in an authentic Hadith:
“A person’s family and relatives are the ones responsible for arranging his burial.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 2, Page 102)
We read:
Now Ali ibn Abi Talibyuuu[ was working busily preparing the Apostle (for burial), so Umar sent a message to Abu Bakr (instead)…
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
We read further:
(They) left Ali and others (close relatives) to make arrangements for the burial of the Prophet.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274)
It should be noted that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) mentioned in detail during his Caliphate that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) went to Saqifah only in order to caution the Ansar against taking any action that would spark a civil war. When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) left for Saqifah, he had no intention whatsoever of becoming Caliph himself; had this been the case, then surely Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have brought along more than two of his supporters. Surely, if what our Shia brothers portray is true, then shouldn’t Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) have brought with him a whole mass of his supporters and friends? Instead, he went with only two Companions to a large group of the Ansar. At Saqifah, there were thus only three Muhajirs who were far outnumbered by the Ansar. This would be a less than ideal situation for a Muhajir like Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه): Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have only two supporters whereas Saad ibn Ubaadah (رضّى الله عنه) had a whole gathering of Ansar to back him! Common sense dictates that if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had conspired to take the Caliphate for themselves, then surely they would have brought along with them more Muhajir friends of theirs.
This fact cannot be stressed enough, as it completely vindicates Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) of all suspicion. These two men were so unaware of such a happening that they went to Saqifah with no more than one man with them! Had they desired to take the Caliphate, then what prevented them from taking along with them a strong group of their supporters? Why did they not take along Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه), Khalid bin Waleed (رضّى الله عنه), Muawiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه), etc? If this was a coup d’état as the Shia claim, then it had to be the worst planned operation ever in the history of humanity. The Ansar were the great majority at Saqifah and they were ready to pledge Baya’ah to one of their own men; if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to further his own claim to the Caliphate, he should have brought enough of his supporters to overwhelm the Ansar. Instead, he came with only two Companions. Indeed, it was not a grab for power at all, but rather Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) set out only to counsel the Ansar, hoping that their veteran status would straighten out the Ansar.
The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not taken along to Saqifah. How can anyone complain of this when the Shaikhayn did not even bring along their closest friends and supporters? Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t find the need to bring along Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matter–because they had no idea whatsoever that an election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansar from electing their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansar announced themselves the leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader, and fall into civil war.
What the Shia criticize the Shaikhayn for is actually something these two noble men should be praised for: Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were showing softness and sensitivity towards Ali (رضّى الله عنه), allowing him to grieve for his loved one without having to worry about the fate of the Muslim Ummah. An analogy of this is a man whose father dies and so his employee/colleague shoulders his work load for a time so that the man can go to his father’s funeral without any other extra worries or burdens to think about. And so it was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Abu Ubaidah (رضّى الله عنه) head out towards Saqifah–despite their grief over the Prophet’s death–to deal with a major problem, and to prevent the nascent Islamic state from collapsing into nothingness. Indeed, these three men did single-handedly save Islam and prevent a great Fitnah.
It seems that Ibn al Hashimi has offered a defence for his clients that themselves offered! We would invite him to produce a sahih narration wherein the Shaykhain attested that this was the reason why Maula Ali (as) was not informed.
The reality is the less people that knew the better, as this led, the reduced risk of people either stopping them or accompanying them, both risked their plans being thwarted. They didn’t want any other competitors to the station – and were fully aware that if the information got out then the legitimacy of going would have been questioned since both gentlemen had already given bayya at Ghadir to Ali (as). As such if they were sincere they should have encouraged them all to confront the Ansar and ask why they were conducting themselves in such a nefarious manner when the Prophet (s) had already appointed Ali (as).
The more people know of a secret the increased likelihood it will come out. The fact is Ali (as) had been appointed the heir apparent at Ghadir Khumm and the Sheikhain had given bayya there. Had they made public the happenings at Saqifa, the supporters of Ali (as) may well have also pushed to attend and argue that the Ansar had no right to squabble over leadership when a successor had already been appointed. Such an argument was not palatable to the Sheikhain so they deemed it better to attend themselves and enter in to deliberations, focused on appointing a leader that was not Ali (as). They had arguments in their mind, the hitherto distraught Umar himself attested to preparing a speech on route, prior to entering the venue.
The meeting at Saqifa was a gathering of the Ansar, Abu Bakr, Hadhrath Umar and Abu Ubaydah were the only members of the Muhajireen who attended the meeting 1. Upon arrival at the Saqifa one of the Ansar stood up and began to extol the virtues of the Ansar 2. Upon hearing this:
1. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 186, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
2. The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
"Umar said: When I saw that they wanted to cut us from our root and wrest authority from us, I wanted to make a speech, which I had composed in my mind. As I used to treat Abu Bakr with gentle courtesy to some extent and considered him more sober and gentler than me I conferred with him about the speech. When I wanted to speak he said gently so I did not like to disobey him...He said 'Now then: O men of the Ansar, you deserve all the fine qualities that you have mentioned about yourselves, but the Quraysh, for they represent the best in lineage and standing. I am pleased to offer you one of these two men; render your oath of allegiance to any one of them you like. Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah".
The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
Poonawalla, the translator of this edition of al-Tabari then adds a further segment of the speech of Abu Bakr to the Ansar, under footnote 1343:
"Baladhuri, Ansab 1, 582, cites the speech of Abu Bakr which shows how he argued against the Ansar. He states: "We are the first people to accept Islam. We are in the Center among the Muslims with respect to our position, and we are the noblest with respect to our lineage, and we are the nearest to the Messenger of God in relationship. You are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religion...The Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraysh...You had not better compete with your Muhajirun brethren for what God has decreed for them".
The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, footnote 1343, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla
In extolling the virtues of the Muhajireen, Abu Bakr also said that they were:
"the first on earth to worship Allah and were the patrons and the clan of the Prophet who tolerated and suffered with him and adversities and injuries inflicted upon them by their own folk who disbelieved them and all other people opposed them and alienated them".
Halabi further expands on Abu Bakrs' words:
"We are the relatives of the Apostle...and therefore we are the people who are entitled to the caliphate...It will be advisable to have the leadership among us and for you to be the Viziers".
Sirah, by al Halabi,Volume 3 page 357
While Abu Bakr had put forward the names of Umar and Abu Ubaydah as his choice of successors, they declined, this is what their reply was, as is quoted by the Sunni historian Yaqubi:
"By God we cannot give preference over you while you are the companion of the Messenger of God and the second of the two [in the cave at the time of the Hijrah]“. Abu Ubaydah put his hand on Abu Bakr’s hand and Umar did the same [in ratifying the bargain]. The Meccans who were with them did the same. Then Abu Ubaydah cried “O people of the Ansar, you were the first to help [the Prophet] so do not be the first to change and convert back to paganism”. Next Abd al-Rahman b. Awf stood up and said, ‘O people of the Ansar, although you do not have among you [anyone] like Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali’. [Thereupon] 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
What happens next is a proposed compromise by Hubab i.e. that there be two Khalifa, one from the Ansar the other from the Quraysh 1 Umar immediately rejected the proposal:
History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 194
“How preposterous! Two swords cannot be accommodated in one sheath. By God the Arabs will never accept your rule since their Prophet is not from you, but they will not reject the rule of one from whom is their Prophet. If anyone refuses our authority, we will [produce] a clear rebuttal and an evident proof. Who would dispute us with regard to Muhammad’s authority and rule except the falsely guided one, or the erring one, or the one damned when we are his close associates and kinsfolk”.
History of Tabari, English translation, p 194 see footnote 1347 quoted Tabari Vol 1 p 1841
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
The Ansar-Muhajir Divide
The two major groups of the early Islamic movement were the Muhajirs (Emigrants of Mecca) and the Ansars (Helpers of Medinah). After the Prophet’s death, the question arose as to which group would be granted the Caliphate. There were two considerations: (1) the religious and spiritual issues, as well as (2) the practical and socio-political issues.
The Religious and Spiritual Issues
As far as religion and spirituality were concerned, the Muhajirs were the more rightful candidates for the Caliphate based on the fact that they were the first to convert to Islam, they had struggled and sacrificed more for Islam, and most of the seasoned Sahabah were from amongst the Muhajirs. Naturally, since they had been in the folds of Islam for a longer time, they had acquired more deeds of merit than the Ansar, and so they were the ones who deserved the Caliphate. No group surpassed the Muhajirs in good deeds and service to Islam. It should be understood that from a religious and doctrinal point of view, it was the merits of the Muhajirs (i.e. their service, sacrifice, and good deeds for Islam)–not their lineage–that granted them the right to Caliphate. However, in addition to this, there were many practical and socio-political reasons that the leadership should remain from amongst the Muhajirs, due to the fact that they were from the tribe of Quraish. Nonetheless, these should not at all be confused for religious and spiritual reasons. When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) debated with the Ansar, the perceptive reader will note that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) himself appreciated this difference. He himself only furthered the religious and spiritual arguments (i.e. the merits of the Muhajirs), and he only mentioned the practical and socio-political arguments (i.e. the position of the Quraish) as the views held by the general public, not by himself; the latter were important only insofar as maintaining the unity of the fledgling Muslim empire. This distinction–between religious and socio-political reasons–is important to understand.
First and foremost Ibn al Hashimi is justifying the reasons why the Ansar were entitled to lead, based on merit. The fact is Rasulullah (s) never said anything to this effect, thus his qiyas is rejected. Sunni traditions are clear that the Quraish have a legal right to rule the State ad infinitum no matter what the condition / socio political situation on the ground. This can be evidenced by clear traditions of Rasulullah (s) and rulings of the Sunni clergy who have attested to the divine right of the Quraish to be Caliphs, no one else has that right. If this is not a religious designation then what on earth is it?
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Practical and Socio-Political Issues
In the times of Jahiliyyah before the advent of Islam,Arabiaconsisted of various independent and sovereign city-states. Although they were not united as one nation, the Arabs did nonetheless recognizeMeccaas the center and helm ofArabia. The Quraish of Mecca had become very powerful and influential due to the fact that they took care of the Ka’abah: the Arabs from all over would pay the Quraish to have them house their gods. Because of this special honor, the Quraish of Mecca were generally honored by all the other tribes and operated as the United Nations (UN) ofArabia. Meanwhile, whereas the sanctuary inMeccawas off limits to fighting and warfare, the rest of Pre-Islamic Arabia was steeped in violence from incessant tribal warfare and in-fighting.
This changed with the advent of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who united all the various tribes together under the banner of Islam. It was the Prophet’s powerful personality which brought peace to the warring factions. First, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) united the Aws and the Khazraj of Yathrib (i.e. Medinah), who had been locked into a hundred year long war. These two tribes agreed to make the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) their arbiter and broker of peace. This unity between the Aws and Khazraj bolstered the strength and prestige of Medinah in the eyes ofArabia. Even so, the various tribes ofArabia still recognized the Quraish of Mecca to be the leaders ofArabia; when the Quraish polytheists declared a state of hostility with Medinah, the rest ofArabia joined suit and collectively came to be known as the Confederates.
It was based on this situation that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Sahabah realized thatMecca was the key to rulingArabia. UntilMecca was not conquered, the Muslims would never be recognized as the leaders ofArabia. It was for this reason that the Muslim armies marched out againstMecca and conquered it; and without fail, as soon asMecca was converted to aland ofIslam, the neighboring tribes of all ofArabia paid tribute to the supremacy of the Islamic state. Tribe after tribe then converted to Islam, and the Muslims were recognized as the new leaders ofArabia. It was only afterMecca was conquered by the Muslims–and the tribe of Quraish, the unwritten leaders ofArabia, converted en masse to Islam–that the people ofArabia were willing to accept the supremacy of Islam under the leadership of a Prophet from the tribe of Quraish. We read:
The conquest of Mecca was considered the most serious advantage achieved by Muslims during those years, for it affected the course of events and consequently affected the Arabs’ whole life [sic]…for the tribe of Quraish, at that time, were in the eyes of Arabs the defenders and helpers of (all of the) Arabs. Other Arabs were only (considered) their subordinates. The submission of the Quraish (to Islam) is, therefore, estimated to be a final elimination of paganism in the Arabian Peninsula…(after which) people began to convert to Islam in very large numbers.
(Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.474)
We read further:
The destruction of idols installed in the Ka’abah meant the destruction of the idols all overArabia. Likewise, the entry of the Quraish into Islam implied the whole of Arabia coming to the fold of Islam, for all eyes were fixed on the Quraish of Mecca to see whether they accepted Islam or not.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.223-224)
Historians agree that–due to the socio-political structure of that time–the Arabians would have rejected Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had he come from a weak tribe, and it was only because he was from the leading tribe of the Quraish that they accepted him. This is not at all a strange concept: if today the Micronesian ambassador tried pushing legislation through the United Nations, no other country would feel compelled to accept it. However, if the American ambassador adopted such a legislation, then all the countries of the world would comply. In other words, theUnited States–by one way or the other–is seen as the leader, and the countries of the world would accept an American leader, not a Micronesian one.
When Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had been ex-communicated from the leaders of the Quraish and banished to Medinah, the tribes of Arabia rejected the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and his Message. When Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) converted the tribe of Quraish to Islam and became their leader, then all of the tribes of Arabia recognized him. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) used this position of prestige to infuse the spirit of Islamic brotherhood throughout the land; he warned against tribal affiliation and Assabiyyah, uniting all ofArabia under one banner.
All we see is a history lesson on the achievement of the Quraish, there is nothing to dispute here.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
However, after the Prophet’s death, the unity of the Ummah–that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had worked so hard to achieve–was in a state of great peril. A power vacuum was created, and each of the various factions were vying for the position of power, a situation that no doubt was threatening to tear up into pieces the nascent Islamic state. Sir John Glubb says: “Mohammed was not dead an hour before the struggle for power threatened to rend Islam into rival factions.”
The Ansar of Medinah were planning on declaring themselves the leaders of the Muslim state, and this is how the gathering at Saqifah began. There was a great fear that if the Ansar declared their own man to be the Caliph, then the tribes of Arabiawould reject them as being inferior and unfit to rule. Most of these tribes had converted to Islam after the conquest of Mecca. Before the Islamic conquest of Mecca, these Arab tribes had submitted to the leadership of the Meccan Quraish; after the Islamic conquest of Mecca, these Arab tribes continued to submit to the same Meccan Quraish who were now Muslim. If, however, the leadership were to suddenly switch to Medinah–and if the Ansar declared their own man to be Caliph–then nothing prevented these other Arab tribes from similarly declaring their own leaders. The Ansar themselves knew this and they were satisfied with this idea that every tribe have their own leader, but Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) knew that this would be unacceptable for the Muslims to become disunited after they had been once united under the banner of Islam. Allah Almighty says:
“And hold fast, all of you together, by the Rope of Allah and be not divided amongst yourselves.”
(Quran, 3:103)
On the one hand this Nasibi insists that all the Sahaba are just and truthful, men of probity, and yet then paints a picture that informs us that no sooner had the Master (s) left the earth they became greedy individuals, eying for political control and authority? What happened for the aura of love and understanding that they all allegedly had for one another? Is it not shameless that leadership was given greater credence to mourning their deceased leader? This argument certainly paints the esteemed Sahaba in an extremely negative light.
It is indeed amazing that Ibn al Hashimi informs us:
“There was a great fear that if the Ansar declared their own man to be the Caliph, then the tribes of Arabia would reject them as being inferior and unfit to rule.” .
If this is indeed the case are we saying the Sahaba he defends, those that as he would lead to us to believe adhered to every word of the Prophet (s) deemed these words from the famed final sermon of the Prophet (s) to have become redundant following his death:
O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety.
If Ibn al Hashimi’s take on the situation is to be believed then it means that no credence was given to the above words, tribal rivalry and prejudice was the menu of the say following the death of the Prophet (s).
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) knew that this would be unacceptable for the Muslims to become disunited after they had been once united under the banner of Islam.
Worse still was the fact that after the Prophet’s death, many of the new converts to Islam apostasized; without the powerful leader of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), entire tribes renounced Islam and slipped back into Kufr (disbelief). Allah Almighty warned of this in the Quran:
“And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were messengers that have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least but Allah will reward the grateful.”
(Quran, 3:144)
It was in this precarious situation that the Ummah needed a strong and capable leader to quickly replace the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the various groups split apart in complete disarray and utter chaos. It was in this atmosphere that the people needed to declare a Caliph posthaste in order to quell any rebellion. We read:
Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”
“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)
And this new leader could not at all come from a weak and unpopular tribe, because the Arabians would definitely not have accepted him as a leader; such a thing would have resulted in all out rebellion and collapse of the Muslim union. What the Muslims needed was a candidate from a powerful and popular tribe with mass appeal that could secure the vote from all of the other tribes.
Did Rasulullah (s) not forsee this inherent risk of diviison that Abu Bakr and Umar recognised? Were they wiser than him (s)? Would logic not dicate that he appoint a successor to quash such a risk? To suggest that Rasulullah (s) thought nothing about such a risk and provided no remedy to alleviate it, casts aspersions on his position as a leader. To suggest that Rasulullah (s) paid no heed to the risks that the Shaikhain recognised and left the world content without appointing a successor and thus no control or authority over society, means that he paved the way for anarchy, which is what Ibn al Hashimi would have us believe was the state that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (saws) deliberately left the Ummah in after his departure from this world. The preposterousness of the Sunni position is perhaps becoming clear to the reader (and it is also the conceptual foundation stone of what divides them from the Shia).
The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, which is very widely used for its definition of such terms, states the meaning of the word ‘anarchy’ is as follows. The dictionary states that it is derived from the Greek word anarchos, prefix a, thus meaning “not,” “the want of,” “the absence of,” or “the lack of”, and the noun archos, meaning “a ruler,” “director”, “chief,” “person in charge,” “commander.” Hence anarchy – leaderless – of course, this is the very lowest form that any society or people can take, a form of collective chaotic idiocy applied en masse for civilisation, which is why no ruler in history, even the most idiotic, dimwitted and incompetent ones, have left office without there existing a successor or system whereby a successor would be found, however rudimentary such a system may be, all to prevent anarchy. To suggest that Abu Bakr and Umar recognised a risk that Rasulullah (s) completely ignored is so disturbing in its perceived implications for the character of Mohammad (saws), who through this stupid doctrine of non-appointment becomes the world’s ultra-anarchist. Consider:
The complete failure of Rasulullah to appoint a successor to counter the risks recognised by the Shaikhain head on in effect depicts him (s) as the ultimate chancer and gambler in history. No leader who knows his death is fast-approaching has departed from his people without there existing the system for the appointment of a successor and/or a designated successor. It is quite simply a truism – an unquestionable fact that a successor and/or system of succession must thus exist, it is a most basic issue of responsibility. A football captain has a deputy in case he falls sick even for a 90-minute game, a foreman on a worksite has a deputy who immediately takes over if he is injured, indeed the higher the position, the more stringent and formal the system for there existing a system of succession. When it comes to men with very significant concerns, such as world rulers, there is always a system for succession, owing to the concentration of responsibilities in so many areas – each one demands a stringent system of succession – political, military, administrative, and in this case spiritual and religious responsibilities. Abu Bakr, Umar, and all succeeding khalifas including Uthman (who despite being killed in a revolt against him left a system of succession in his family who occupied all positions of power and on the basis of which Muawiya claimed the caliphate) appointed a successor or system of succession as their end in this world approached. But Sunni dogma, despite upholding the fact that Mohammad (s) knew he was lying on his deathbed for some time, is the only ruler in history to have apparently left no successor OR a system for succession? Did he thus fail to discharge his fundamental responsibilities as a human leader? Did he instead think he would live forever and was a god? This is inconceivable to us as Muslims, rather, the doctrine of non-appointment is a false doctrine
The Holy Prophet (saws) had great judgment and insight into the hearts of men. As prophet he knew the future. He knew who was sincere, who was insincere, and who had the very best leadership skills after him from amongst his followers. The Holy Prophet (saws) was a visionary, he was a seer, indeed he was the greatest seer of all. Now ordinary leaders, the lesser and ordinary rulers, use their judgment to make a wise choice for successor. Yet the doctrine of non-appointment would suggest that the wisest man of all, the greatest seer of all, would die without appointing his successor, despite his prophetic insight as to who from his followers would be the very best ruler for his people. If the doctrine of non-appointment is correct, it is an absurd notion indeed for Muslims to genuinely believe that Mohammad (s) was the wisest man in history. Of course it can only be that the doctrine of non-appointment that is deeply flawed.
Above all, Mohammad (s) had responsibility for the maintenance of the Qur’an, the Final Divine Scripture and Revelation from God to mankind. He had a responsiblity to ensure that a sucession existed for this supreme Scripture to be safeguarded and disseminated, especially in the midst of the threat of the Apostasy Movement, as Ibn al Hashimi has himself referred to [a little known fact is that in the last months of his life Mohammad (saws) witnessed half the muslims recant their religion and take up once again paganism. This movement was led by armies of central Arabian Bedouins led by a woman called Sajja and a man called Musalima known as the Liar by muslims]. Mohammad (saws) could not leave anarchy and a void in the Muslim leadership. Should he have done so the Seal of 124,000 Prophets would be departing this world leaving the legacy of his own Missionas well as that of the 123,999 preceding prophets of whom his Missionwas the culmination, in a most vulnerable state without a designated system for succession. Should the doctrine of non-appointment be true, it represents on the part of Mohammad (saws) a supreme irresponsibility to Allah (sawt), the other prophets, and the billions of Muslims to come.
Mohammad (s)’s responsibilities went further than any other prophet. Not only was he the supreme religious guide, he had also created the first Islamic society, in Madina. He had toiled so hard to build this and he had an important responsibility to maintain it. The purity of this legacy would have been jeopardized should the doctrine of non-appointment be correct. This would include jeopardy to the maintenance of the muslim nation he had spent decades building, an entire economy, defenses, administration, maintenance of law and order, judiciary, army, care for the sick, the old, widows and orphans, and above all the maintenance of the Divine light of guidance for the billions to follow. The Holy Prophet Mohammad (saws) would not leave the issue of succession to leadership of his Ummah to the vagaries of what might happen after his death.
Think deeply over this issue of national security. Even the least enlightened leader dies with at least indicating his preferred choice of successor. There is always a deputy to the Premier in case the Premier dies or is killed. The primary motive here is of course to ensure that in the event of war the nation is not left leaderless without a commander-in-chief, for even the smallest time interval. Unlike many prophets, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (saws) was not a purely spiritual leader, he was also a political leader of a dynamic nation and a people, a state facing constant military threats to its existence from false religions. In his final earthly-days amongst the Ummah, Mohammad (saws) was the the ruler of a nation facing hostile armies on the western border with Christian Byzantium (the Romans) and Europe who had invaded Muslim land, and the Zoroastrian Persian Empire in the East, and against the former of which he had himself recently led a military force against (The Campaign of Tabook), and also dispatched an army on his deathbed to engage militarily (the army under Usama bin Zaid) as the threat from these foreign powers was so great. With the first Muslim state being invaded by the hostile Christian armies of the Byzantine Empire in the West, and simultaneously attacked by the Zoroastrian Empire of Persia in the East, not to mention the Armies of the Apostasy Movement in Central Arabia, the doctrine of non-appointment upholds that the supreme Muslim ruler and Commander-in-Chief, Mohammad (saws), despite knowing he is dying and his nation, which is the first and at the time only muslim nation, is under massive attack that could decimate it, leaves the Muslims in a state of anarchy, without designating successor or even a system of succession, without a Commander-in-Chief to wage military jihad and thus the state open to attack in both the East and the West! What, do our critics regard the security of the Muslim state so casually? The acclaimed Wahabi scholar from the Indian subcontinent Abul Hasan Nadwi is correct when he writes in his book “The life of Caliph Ali” page 51:
“The death of the Prophet was a decisive as well as a dangerous juncture for the life and death of Islam. Islam was, at best, like a small island surrounded by the sea of Paganism, polytheistic beliefs, unruly traditions of the Arabian nomads and despotic kingdoms. Arabs had only recently accepted islam but they had no experience of a corporate social order or leading a disciplined life”
All these risks and Rasulullah (s) does not to an iota to address them by appointing a successor? Is this the correct version of history that Ibn al Hashimi would like us to accept? The Shaikhain appear on the seen aware of all of these inherent risk and in effect become heroes of the hour averting a national disaster, a disaster that Rasulullah (s) was either ignorant of, or completely ignored!
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself recognized the dynamics of Arabia at the time. He knew that his successor must come from the tribe of Quraish; he knew that if the Caliph was an Ansar, then this would have been the end of the Islamic empire. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) respected the right of the people to decide for themselves who would be their Caliph; to impose upon them someone that the vast majority of the people reject would not at all be just. The Arabian and Islamic tradition was established that among the various groups present, only that group assumed the political authority which enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the people. At the time of the Prophet’s death, this was the Quraish (i.e. Muhajirs) ofMecca and not the Ansar (i.e. Aws and Khazraj) of Medinah.
If he respected the right of the people to decide for themselves then why did he not say as such in any of his sermons? Moreover would he not have sought to provide any guidance on the system of succession? How was it to happen? What qualities would a leader require? What would be the method, force, a ballot or the flip of a coin?
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
It should be noted that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was not at all being racist or discriminatory. But rather, he was applying the principles of self-determination and popular sovereignty that are accepted today by international law. To give a proper analogy: the formerUSSR was made up of many republics, includingRussia,Ukraine,Uzbekistan,Armenia, etc. Of these,Russia is the most dominant. Would it be fair to impose an Armenian on the masses when they would not recognize him? Surely not! It would only be fair and just for a Russian to be the leader of theUSSR because only he would be accepted by the vast majority of the people….
Ghamidi says:
After the general acceptance of faith by the Arab masses, they (Quraish) enjoyed the same confidence of the people and they were the influentials of the Arabs as they were in the Pre-Islamic era. Hence, elections were not needed to confirm this reality. There was there no room for a difference of opinion in the fact that the Quraish had the popular support of the masses behind them and that no tribe could challenge this position of theirs. There is no doubt that as far as Medinah was concerned, the Ansar under Saad ibn Ubaadah and Saad ibn Muadh, the respective leaders of the Aws and Khazraj, had more influence among the local population…Had the Islamic State been confined only to Medinah, it can be said with certainty that after the Prophet, they (the Ansar) would have assumed political authority. But after the conquest ofMecca, when a large number of Arabs of other territories accepted Islam, the political scene changed drastically. The extent of confidence commanded by the Muhajirs of the Quraish far surpassed that of the Ansar.
It was based on this principle of popular sovereignty and self-determination–and not Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry)–that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) ordered that a man of the Quraish tribe become the first Caliph. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was not at all saying that the Quraish were superior based on their lineage, and in fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) warned against such Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) in multiple Hadith. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was merely saying that the Quraish were fit to be the rulers because they commanded the support of the masses ofArabia. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, it was the Quraish who had been for hundreds of years managing the affairs ofArabia. They had thus developed the skills set and capability to lead, whereas other tribes did not have such experience and were thus not capable to take on a position of leadership. To suddenly switch the leadership from an experienced tribe to a less experienced one would cause decay and civil collapse. We read:
Yes, he (the Prophet) admitted to tribal preference but it was confined only to those which were known for their managing and leading capabilities due to the experience and training that the members of those specific tribes were exposed to. For management and commander-ship, he selected the capable and qualified persons from among those families.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.2, p.22)
It is for these practical reasons that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:
“Our political authority shall remain with the Quraish…as long as they follow Islam.”
(Bukhari: Kitabu’l-Ahkam)
And the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) warned the Ansar:
“In this matter (i.e. leadership), bring forward the Quraish and do not try to supersede them.”
(Talkhis al-Habeer, Vol.2, p.26)
As well as:
“After me, the political authority shall be transferred to the Quraish.”
(Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal, vol. 3, p. 183)
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) clearly explained the reason for this:
“People (ofArabia) in this matter (i.e. leadership) follow the Quraish. The believers ofArabiaare the followers of their believers and the disbelievers ofArabiaare the followers of their disbelievers.”
(Muslim, Kitabu’l-Imarah)
…………
Ibn al Hashimi’s entire argument is dismantled by the fact that the Sunni clergy have accepted the traditions relied on by Abu Bakr, namely ‘the Imams are from Quraish’ as the green light for leadership to remain in that tree ad infinitum. For example we read in Sharh Mawafiq, page 732:
“The conditions of Imamate are that the imam be from the Quraysh, this condition has been deemed obligatory by the Asharies, although the Jabayaan, the Khawarij and some Muttzilites are opposed to this”
Ibn Khaldun points to the discussion at Saqifa as follows:
“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”.
It is worth noting that most Sunnis are adherents of the Ashari creed. 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.”
Let us therefore provide a variant of Ibn al Hashimi’s article to show how democratic Sunni Islam is on Leadership:
To give a proper analogy: the former USSR was made up of many republics, including Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc. Of these, Russia is the most dominant. Would it be fair to impose an Armenian on the masses when they would not recognize him? Surely not! It would only be fair and just for a Russian to be the leader of the USSR because only he would be accepted by the vast majority of the people. If however even one Russian was of Quraish descent he has the right to rule over the entire former USSR as his lineage negates the right of any other would be candidate.
This is the democratic nature of Sunnism, that Ibn al Hashimi chose to ignore. One that was so imbedded in the Arab psyche that Umar even prohibited non Arabs from entering Madina. Imam Abdulrazaq al-San’ani records in his authority work Al-Musanaf, Volume 5 page 474:
عبدالرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري قال : كان عمر بن الخطاب لا يترك أحدا من العجم يدخل المدينة
Abdulrazaq – Mu’amar – Al-Zuhari said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab didn’t allow any one of the non Arab to enter Madina.’
Abdulrazaq: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v2 p609), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599). Mu’amar: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p40), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).
Ibn al-Hashimi might be willing to reject the assertions of these Ulema, but how can he dismiss the ruling of his own blessed Imam Ibn Tamiyah who 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
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.”
When both of Ibn al Hashimi’s Imams, believe that Caliphate was a divine right applicable for all times, who is he to insist that it should only be restricted to the era wherein Rasulullah (s) lived? Did he (s) not know that Islam would spread far and wide and there might exists localities wherein the Quraish were a minority and even non existent? If so, did he (s) seek to place any caveat to the tradition wherein he (s) referred to Caliphate as being a right of the Quraish? Did he for example say ‘The Imams are the Quraish as long as they live in a society wherein they are a majority’? Certainly not, and the Sunni Ulema (including the two Imams of Ibnm al Hashimi) derived from the traditions that the carte blanche authority to be at the helms of power.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Shia Account of Saqifah
Surprisingly, the Shia account of Saqifah is similar to the Sunni version. We read:
When Muhammad died, his daughter, Fatima, her husband, Ali, and the rest of the family of Hashim, gathered around the body preparing it for burial…[a] group (of Ansar) were gathering in the portico of Banu Sa’ida. It was reported to Abu Bakr that the Ansar were contemplating pledging their loyalty to Sa’d ibn Ubada, chief of the Khazraj. And so Abu Bakr and his group hurried to the Saqifa. One of the Ansar spoke first saying that as the Ansar had been the ones who supported and gave victory to Islam and since the Meccans were only guests inMedina, the leader of the community should be from the Ansar. Abu Bakr replied to this very diplomatically. He began by praising the virtues of the Ansar, but then he went on to point out that the Muhajirun (the Meccans) were the first people in Islam and were closer in kinship to the Prophet. The Arabs would accept leadership only from the Quraysh and so Quraysh should be the rulers and the Ansar their ministers. One of the Ansar proposed: “Let there be one ruler from us and one ruler from you…” And so the argument went back and forth until Abu Bakr proposed: “Give your allegiance to one of these two men: Abu Ubayda or Umar.” And Umar replied: “While you are still alive? No! It is not for anyone to hold you back from the position in which the Apostle placed you. So stretch out your hand.” And Abu Bakr stretched out his hand and Umar gave him his allegiance. One by one, slowly at first, and then rushing forward in a mass, the others did likewise…
Shi’i sources maintain that Ali did not in fact give his allegiance to the new Caliph until afterFatima’s death, which occurred six months after the death of the Prophet.
(”An Introduction to Shi’i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi’ism”; by Moojan Momen, pp.18-20)
It should be noted that this book is on Al-Islam.org’s recommended reading list.
The author of the said book, is Bahai, who are vociferous in their hatred of the Shia. If he has offered his take on history, it is if no value to us, as these are the words of an unreliable source. If the author is however happy to rely on non Muslim sources as ‘proof’ then we invite him to consult Madelung’s book ‘Succession to Muhammad’ that leaves an individual with no doubt that the Shaikhain conspired to take the seat of Caliphate through a secret meeting at Saqifa.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Requirement to be Member of Majority Group
Shaikh Al-Sunnah and Lisaan al-Ummah (i.e. Imam al-Baqillani) stated that the there is no requirement that a person must be Quraishi in order to be Caliph. He stated that a person must simply belong to the majority group. This is also stated by Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad Riya-Ad-Deen, namely that the leader must simply belong to the group in the majority. Because the Quraishis were the majority group at the time of the Prophet’s death, therefore the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said the Caliph must be Quraishi. Again, this was based on the principle of majority rule, not upon Assabiyyah (bigotry/tribalism).
The suggestion that Imamate is dependent on the support of the masses is a complete lie, we have addressed in our article “the non egalitarian nature of Imamate”, the relevant chapter being this one:
Moreoever if we follow this argument through logically it would mean that in the same way that the majority support determines leadership, the same majority should have the free will to remove the Caliph if they feel he is no longer up for the role, that is after part and parcel of the doctrine of self determination that Ibn al Hashimi is harping on about. So tell us Ibn al Hashimi when the majority of Madinans, not just ordinary Madinans but the last remnants of the Sahaba of the Prophet (s) rebelled against the Caliphate of Yazeed and that led to the pogrom of the residents of Harra via slaughter and mass rape, why was their right of self determination rejected by Ibn Umar who deemed the bayya to Yazeed to be pursuant to the conditions that had been set by Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s)?
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه)
Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not present at the General Baya’ah; instead, he took Baya’ah at the hand of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) some time later: some sources seem to indicate that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took Baya’ah after two days, whereas others state that he did not give it for six months. There is nothing strange at all in this discrepancy because an innumerable number of events in Islamic history also have similar discrepancies due to the fact that historical dating is a troublesome task. (For example, to give just one other such instance, “The History of al-Tabari” cites some sources which state that the Prophet died at 63 years of age, whereas others state that the Prophet died two years later at 65 years of age; Tabari states both views in his book.)
Perhaps the strongest opinion is that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) gave Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) twice, once on the second day and the other six months later. The tradition of the Muslims was to renew one’s Baya’ah periodically (i.e. the Muslims renewed their Baya’ah to the Prophet on numerous occassions), and people may have expected Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to renew his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) due to the conflict of Fadak which had created a situation in which some people questioned Ali’s loyalties to the Caliph. Whatever the case, whether it was two days or six months is largely immaterial. The fact is that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did in fact pledge his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), something which does not sit well with the Shia paradigm; why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) pledge his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) at all if the Shia claims were true?
If it was commonplace to give bayya twice as in initially and then reaffirm it, can Ibn al Hashimi show us examples other Sahaba who did this? Why does this reaffirmation only occur with Ali (as)? The reality is Ahl’ul Sunnah’s second most esteemed work notifies us that no bayya occurred until following the death of Fatima (as). We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Hadith No.4352:
“It is narrated on the authority of Urwa b. Zubair who narrated from A’isha that she informed him that Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), sent someone to Abu Bakr to demand from him her share of the legacy left by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) from what Allah had bestowed upon him at Medina and fadak and what was left from one-filth of the income (annually received) from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:” We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” The household of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) will live on the income from these properties, but, by Allah, I will not change the charity of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) from the condition in which it was in his own time. I will do the same with it as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upun him) himself used to do. So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When she died, her husband. ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, ‘All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. So he sought to make peace with Abu Bakr and offer his allegiance to him. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these months”.
If Ibn al Hashimi wishes to extol the reality of the immediate bayya of our Imam (as) allow us to cite a book from his own camp that exposes the reality of the means via which this historic bayya was acquired, as recorded Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045:
“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’
So when Umar left, they (Ali and Zubair) came , so she (Fatima) said to them: ‘Do you know that Umar came here and swear by Allah to burn the house if you gather here, I swear by God that he (Umar) will execute his oath, so please leave wisely and take a decision and don’t gather here again.’ So they left her and didn’t gather there till they give baya to Abu Bakr.”
All the narrators are authentic as they are the narrators of Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim. Muhammad bin Bashir: Imam Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58). Ubaidllah bin Umar: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p637). Zaid bin Aslam: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326). Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar): Al-Dahabi said: ‘Faqih, Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p88).
Also see:
History of al-Tabari, Volume page 9 pages 186-187
Ibn al Hashimi seeks to evidence the undying loyalty that our Imam had for Abu Bakr by citing the fact that he (as) have bayya to Abu Bakr. As a starting point Nawasib should know that if the Shia traditions wherein the Imam (as) gave bayya are to be accepted then they all point to a bayya under duress, the Imam responded to the situation he was facing at that particular time, if there is no compulsion in religion, there is likewise no compulsion when it comes to bayya, if it is extracted via duress it is null and void. Now turning to the evidence lodged by Ibn al Hashimi, we will look at each one and then respond:
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
We will, Insha-Allah, write an article citing the overwhelming evidence from Shia sources which confirm that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) gave his Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). For now, we shall suffice with a handful of such reports, and we will focus on those which indicate that in fact Ali (رضّى الله عنه) gave this Baya’ah on the second day after the General Baya’ah. Shaikh Tabrasi wrote in his “al-Ihtejaj” (a classical Shia book) the following:
Tabrasi narrates from (Imam) Muhammad Baqir that when Usamah had left for Jihad when the Messenger of Allah passed away, the news reached Usamah (and) he returned with his army to Medinah. He (Usamah) saw a great number of people surrounding Abu Bakr; on seeing this, he went to question Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked: “What is this?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “It is exactly what you are seeing!” Usamah asked: “Have you (also) given Baya’ah to him?” Ali ibn Abi Talib replied: “Yes.”
(Al-Ihtejaj, p.50: PrintedMashad,Iraq)
The online link wherein one can locate the primary source, al ihtijaaj is attached herewith:
http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/ehtejaj-1/etjaj1-08.html
What this devious Nasibi has done is only partially cite the reference, and avoid referencing the remainder part. On the face of it, the reader is therefore confronted with a reference suggesting that Maula Ali (as) gave bayya forthwith, without a moment’s hesitation. What Ibn al Hashimi fails to cite is the reluctance on the part of Imam Ali (as) prior to giving the bayya. He stops the citation when Imam Ali (as) says ‘Yes’ let us now show our readers how the conversation continues:
Usamah asked: ‘By your own or you have been forced?’ Ali replied: ‘I have been forced’.
The narration in question commences as follows:
وروي عن الباقر عليه السلام
Now, the point is the narration starts with Imam Baqir (as) and has no one before or after it, it is therefore broken and of no value to us. When it comes to Nawasib, particularly Ibn al Hashimi, he will reject each and every hadeeth that extols Imam Ali (as) even if it contains a chain, so using his polemical approach why should we be obliged to accept a hadeeth devoid of a chain?
We also read the following, in another Shia book:
Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time of consultation (i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of the Caliphate: He was the companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We know of his life and we know that the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to Abu Bakr).
(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha; Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed; Vol.1, p.132)
When it comes to the issue of Ibn al Hadid’s work, then the Nasibi has proven that he is a habitual liar on the issue. Already exposed shamelessly for referring to the said source as Shia in his article on ‘the pen and paper’, he has without an ounce of shame repeated the same claim once more.
For the record book Sharah Nahjul Balagha is not a Shia book rather a Sunni Mutazali book written by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed Mutazali. If Ibn al Hashimi possesses an ounce of integrity then we invite him to cite an actual Shia source that contains this narration.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
To provide an online source, we kindly refer the reader to “The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam” by SHM Jafri. Establishing this book’s authenticity in the eyes of the Shia is not difficult since it is available on Al-Islam.org, the most reliable Shia website on the internet. The book may be found here: http://al-islam.org/index.php?sid=729406346&t=sub_pages_74&cat=74
The book “The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam” by SHM Jafri is so authoratative that it is endorsed by the Iranian government. The book is published in Qumwith the blessing of the highest scholars (Maraje’) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please go to this Shia website http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/shiaism.html and scroll down to the bottom to confirm this.
It is also available on Al-Shia.com; you can view this here:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/Al-Islam.org praised the book:
Al-Islam.org says
“For a good source on the effect that Imam Husayn’s sacrifices had on the minds of the Muslims, see: Jafri, The Origins and early Development of Shi’a Islam.
With salaams and du’as
Liyakatali Takim
source: http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00706.html ”
Let us now look at Chapter 2 of this book which is entitled “Saqifa: The First Manifestations”. We read:
Al-Shia.com says
“The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam
S.H.M.Jafri
Chapter 2
Saqifa: The First Manifestations
But according to the most commonly reported traditions, which must be accepted as authentic because of overwhelming historical evidence and other circumstantial reasons, ‘Ali held himself apart until the death ofFatimasix months later. Insisting that ‘Ali should have been chosen, a number of his partisans from among both the Ansar and the Muhajirun who had delayed for some time in accepting Abu Bakr’s succession were fain to yield, however. They gradually, one after the other, were reconciled to the situation and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr.
source:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/
The said book is a PhD thesis, it may well be praised as a ‘good source’ in terms of historical analysis, but as Ibn al Hashimi’s knows only too well history can have historical inaccuracies, and require an individual to gauge through sources to ascertain their accuracy. Remember this book is research not seeking to determine the accuracy of the Shia Sect, rather it is based on which has been documented in history.
The author has concluded that bayya happened on account of “overwhelming historical evidence and other circumstantial reasons”. He has sought to rely on historical works as his proof, now what of the books that Jafri relied upon to form his hypothesis on the issue of bayya, were they Sunni or Shia? Ibn al Hashimi of course chooses to steer clear of the sources cited but we will show you the evidence upon which Jafri relied. The source is reference 68 in the said chapter, and the books he relied upon are as follows:
Yaqubi II page 126, Baladhuri I page 56, Tabari I page 1852, Iqd IV page 260, Hadid II p22
None of the above sources are Shia, all are Sunni so if Jafri is making a conclusion, he is deducing it on that found in Sunni works, i.e. the Sunni position that is of no value to us whatsoever. If he has formed a view based on Sunni sources, then that in no way should be embraced as a Shia view, rather it is an author citing evidence from Sunni sources. Jafri’s book is just a University based research book, to suggest it carries authority in Shia circles is risible, since there exists therein a conclusion such as the suggestion the Imams are created of Nur that contradict mainstream Shiaism, when this conclusion in fact contradicts a plethora of authoritative traditions in Usul-e-Kafi that evidence that they were. This fact evidences the lack of knowledge of the author on many aspects of Shiaism.
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Abu Sufyan (رضّى الله عنه) offered Ali (رضّى الله عنه) the Caliphate, promising to back Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with all his men and camels of war. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) refused the offer. This is narrated in both Sunni and Shia books. For Sunni sources, please refer to the History of al-Tabari (Vol.9, pp.198-199). As for Shia sources, we shall herein cite what is written in “al-Irshad” written by Shaikh Mufid:
…He (Abu Sufyan) called out at the top of his voice: “Banu Hashim, Banu Abd Manaf! Are you content that the despicable father of a young camel, the son of a despicable man, (i.e. Abu Bakr), should have authority over you? No, by Allah, if you wish, let me provide horses and men who will be sufficient for it (i.e. to take the Caliphate).”
“Go back, Abu Sufyan,” shouted the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali), peace be on him. “By Allah, you do not seek Allah in what you are suggesting…”
Abu Sufyan went to the mosque. There he found the Banu Umayyah gathered. He urged them (to take action) in the matter (i.e. against Abu Bakr) but they did not respond to him.
(Al-Irshad, p.136)
In “the History of al-Tabari”, we read:
He (Abu Sufyan) said (to Ali): “O Abu Hasan, stretch out your hand so that I may give you Baya’ah,” but Ali declined…(and) Ali rebuked him, saying: “By Allah, you do not intend anything but to stir up Fitnah…”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.199)
How could Abu Sufyan “offer Ali the Caliphate” was he some king maker that determined who had the right to rule? There existed in Madina plenty of men of influence that he could have made the “offer” to, take Abbas, uncle of the Prophet (s), who was well know to Abu Sufyan and was similar in age, why then turn to Ali (as)? The fact is Abu Sufyan knew Imam Ali (as) had been appointed as the successor of the Prophet (s), amidst this tension the hypocrite merely saw the opportunity to exploit the situation and sow further division through bloodshed. He was not sincere in his motives and Maula Ali (as) was fully aware of his hidden motive, namelty to create Fitnah, that at that time could have destroyed the Ummah and caused unwanton bloodhed. Faced with this reality, Maula Ali (as) rejected Abu Sufyan’s proposals and desisted from any forcefulacton, as it was evbident that hypocrites of the ilk of Abu Sufyan would exploit the situation in any way that they could. When Abu Sufyan saw this fact, he gave bayya to Abu Bakr, and was rewarded accordingly as these Tulqa (newcomers) were given the Goversnorship of Syria, first one son (Yazid) and then the other (Muawiyah). Ayatullah Mughnyia has recorded in Al-Shia fi al-Mizan, page 25:
وحاول أبو سفيان أن يستغل الموقف ويساوم أبابكر فجاء إلى علي وقال… ولما سمع أبوبكر تهويش أبي سفيان أسند بعض الوظائف لولده فرضي وسكت
“Abu Sufyan tried to take advantage of the situation and did bargaining with Abu Bakr, thus he went to Ali and said to him… when Abu Bakr was informed about that incitement by Abu Sufyan, he (Abu Bakr) gave Abu Sufyan’s son some position, thus Abu Sufyan got pleased and hence remained silent.”
We read in Al-Khootoot al-Aryda by Khaqani, page 43:
ولما تبرع له أبوسفيان بملء المدينة خيلا ورجالا ، رده ردا غير جميل لأن ذلك معناه احداث انشقاق في صفوف المسلمين وعلي لا يريد ذلك
“When Abu Sufyan voluntered to fill Madina with knights and foot soldiers, he (Ali) rejected his offer strictly because his offer meant to cause disunity among the Muslims and Ali didn’t want that”.
We read om Jawahir al-Tarikh, Volume 2 page 33 by Ali Koorani:
القضية عنده أن قيادة قريش أنما هي لبني عبدمناف فقط أي الجد الأعلى لبني هاشم وأمية فهما أصحاب الحق القبلي في قيادة قريش
“The case according to him (Abu Sufyan) was that leadership of Quraish must be exclusively for the progeny of Abdulmanaf which was the mutual grandfather of Bani Hashim and Bani Umayya, hence they had the tribal right to lead the Quraish”
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Superiority of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)
Thirty-three thousand Sahabah pledged their Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Muslim masses recognized the superiority of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) above all the other Sahabah, and they came to this conclusion after reflecting on the words of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself….
There is no doubt that the most superior of the Sahabah was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). This was the view of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), the consensus of the Sahabah, and the position of the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah (People of the Sunnah). Therefore, based on this, it was only fitting that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) be declared the successor of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).
Abu Bakr in his own inaugural speech said:
“Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong”.
Tarikh Tabari, English translation Volume 9 page 201
When Abu Bakr is himself pointing to the existence of others in the Ummah that were superior to him, how can there be an absolute ijma in his superiority from amongst the Sahaba? Whose testimony bears greater weight, that of the Sahaba or Abu Bakr himself?
We read in Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 20 page 480:
روي عن سلمان وأبي ذر والمقداد وخباب وجابر وأبي سعيد الخدري وزيد بن أرقم رضي الله عنهم أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه أول من أسلم وفضله هؤلاء على غيره
Salman, Abu Zarr, Miqdad, Khubab, Jabir, Abi Saeed Khudri and Zaid bin Arqam (may Allah be pleased with them all) have narrated that Ali is the first Muslim and all these people used to give seperiority to Ali over others.
We read in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Volume 2 page 17:
أن جماعة من الصحابة كانوا يتشيعون لعلى ويرون استحقاقه على غيره
A group amongst the Sahaba were the Shias of Ali and they used to give preference to Ali over others.
Dr. Muhammad Hussain Dhahabi (d. 1977) the former teachter at he was teacher at Al-Azhar University who subsequently become the minister for ministry of Islamic affairs and endowments stated in his authority work Al-Tafsir wal Mufasaron, Volume 2 page 5:
“Nay there were among the Sahaba who loved Ali and believed that Ali is better than the other Sahaba and he is more deserving to be the Caliph such as Ammar bin Yasir, al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad, Abu Dhar, Salman al-Faresi, Jaber bin Abdullah and many others”
Al-Tafsir wal Mufasaron, Volume 2 page 5
Abu Zuhra states in Al-Shafiye, page 93:
It should be kept in mind that it is not just Shias who believe Ali being greatest of all the Sahaba rather in past era, Sahaba also held this view such as Ammar bin Yasir, Miqdaad bin Aswad, Abu Zarr Ghaffari, Salman Farsi, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ubai bin Kkaab, Huzaifa, Buraida, Abu Ayub, Sahal bin Haneef, Uthman bin Haneef, Abu Hathem, Khuzaima bin Thabit, Abu Tufayl, Aamir bin Wathila, Abbas bin Abdul Mutalib, and their son and others from Bani Hashim; in the begining Zubair also held this view, but changed his opinion later; even in Bani Umayya there were people who held this view like Khalid bin Saeed bin Aas and Umar bin abdul Aziz.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
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)
…
In another Hadith, we read:
“We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best (of the Sahabah)…”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3655)
When it comes to the supposed tradition that suggest Abu Bakr and his daughter were the dearest to Rasulullah (s) we have Ayesha’s own testimony that Ali (as) and Fatima (as) were the dearest and have proved this in chapter four.
If Ibn al Hashimi is suggesting this close relationship was not comparable to any other person, we can counter this by citing the testimony of Imam Ali (as):
وعن ابن عباس أن عليا كان يقول في حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : إن الله عز و جل يقول : { أفإن مات أو قتل انقلبتم على أعقابكم } والله لا ننقلب على أعقابنا بعد إذ هدانا الله تعالى والله لئن مات أو قتل لأقاتلن على ما قاتل عليه حتى أموت والله إني لأخوه ووليه وابن عمه ووارثه فمن أحق به مني
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Ali would to say during the lifetime of Holy Prophet (s): ‘Allah (swt) says “If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you turn on your heels?”. By Allah, we will never turn on our heels after Allah (swt) has guided us. If he dies or is killed, I will fight for what he fought for until I die. By Allah, I am his brother, successor (wali), cousin and heir (warith). And who is more entitled to him than me?’
Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 134
Al-Haythami states:
رواه الطبراني ورجاله رجال الصحيح
“Tabarani has recorded it and all its narrators are narrators of Sahih”.
It is logical sense that when a layperson appoints an individual to for example lead his family after him, and inherit him that appointment is because no one else possesses a closer nexus than that, all others are on the periphery the wali and warith is the closest to that person. This is precisely what Imam Ali (as) was seeking to prove via this address. Imam Ali (as) is openly declaring his closeness to Rasulullah (s), others cannot be compared to others and this closeness entitles him to be the Caliph of Rasulullah (s) as he states who has more right (haq) than him, he is thus openly laying out his credentials to succeed Rasulullah (s) as head of state on account of his designations of the brother, successor, cousin and heir of Rasulullah (s), designations that none other in the Ummah has save him.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
In another Hadith, we read:
“We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best (of the Sahabah)…”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3655)
Observe the words “We used to regard” these are clearly not the words of Rasulullah (s) rather it is an ‘Athar’ yet Ibn al Hashimi describes this as “another Hadith”. If we delve in to the matter we observe that the said narrations is in fact the personal opinion of advocate of Yazeed Ibn Umar. An opinion is just that an opinion, people can agree or disagree with it, and what better reply can we give than the reply of Maulana Waheed uz Zaman to this very tradition:
“The superiority of Abu Bakar can certainly not be deduced from this because this is an opnion of a Sahabi where as in the matters of beliefs even Khabar Wahid Marfu is not considered sufficient then how can a Khabar Moqoof, and that too, an opinion made in Ijtihad be sufficent. Besdies, those who have deduced an argument from this Athar, have themselves did against it, means that some of them have given suprirty to Ali (ra) over Uthman (ra). Moreover, Abdulrazaq has reported this Athar in a complete form and in that it is stated that someone inquired Ibn Umar (ra): ‘Then where does Ali (ra) stand in this?’. He replied: ‘Ali is from the Ahlulbayt’ meaning thereby, we [Maulana Waheed referring to Ibn Umar] were actually referring to those Sahaba who are not included in Ahlulbayt”
Tayseer al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5 page 8
Try as they may, the fact is there is no indisputable ‘Hadith’ in the core Sunni works that the advocates of Abu Bakr can advance as proof of his Khilafat, and we can evidence this by citing the comments of Maulana Waheed uz Zaman in his preface to the chapter in Sahih Bukhari dealing with excellences of Abu Bakr.
From this chapter, that Imam Bukhari has established, one can deduce that his opinion regarding the superiority of Abu Bakr Sideeq (ra) over the other Sahaba mirrored those of the majority of scholars. This was the opinion of majority of Salaf, and most of those who came later as well but some researchers say that there is no clear Nass to ascertain the superiority Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali when all aspects are combined, and in the absence of clear/absolute Nass regarding the superiority issue, that pertains to matters of beliefs this cannot be proven and there is doubt when it comes to an Ijma’a regarding such a superiority. However this is Sahih that there was Ijma’a of all of the Sahaba upon the caliphate of Abu Bakar, but caliphate is not dependent on excellence. Amongst our sheikhs, Shah Waliullah (rh) placed immense stress on evidencing the superiority of the Sheikhain over all the Sahaba, but this all was via hints and indications which cannot act as Hujjah (proof) in the matters of belief. Moreover the hints of Ahadeeth and traditions are contradictory for example the Hadith : ‘O Ali! you are like Haroon to Musa’ and the verse; ‘your wali is Allah and his prophet and those in emaan’, these proves Ali’s superiority over all others, similarly this Hadith “O Fatima, you, this sleeping one (Ali) and I will be residing in one house on the Day of Judgment”
Tayseer al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5 page 7
This is a very important observation, nass here means the existence of an indisputable, unequivocal text that ends all debate – a text that is clear from which one needs no need for a another supporting text. In Shariah, nass will mean a clear verse that isn’t dependent on another verse, as it is devoid of ambiguity, rather it is clear from a first reading. If no such verse exists then there needs to be a Saheeh or Hasan Hadith narration that is clear in its meaning. Zaman admits that there exists no clear nass to prove Abu Bakr’s superiority over others this cannot be proven from the Quran or the Sunnah. Ibn al Hashimi amd his advocates can therefore call upon as many alleged traditions as they choose, the fact is none are unequivocal evidence pointing to Abu Bakr’s right to succeed the Prophet, this cannot be proven either from the Quran or the Sunnah.
Whilst the aforementioned Sunni sources so carry no value to us, allow us to confuse matters for Ibn al Hashimi by citing the fact that that according to their sources Rasulullah (s) said ‘if there was to be a Prophet after me it would be Umar’. So convinced was Ibn Taymiyya at this merir of Umar he even sought to corroborate his stance by falsely referencing it, he wrote in Aqeedah al-Asfahniyyah, volume 1, page 157:
وفي الترمذي عنه ص – أنه قال لو لم أبعث فيكم لبعث فيكم عمر وكان عمر بهذا يعلم أن ما يأتي النبي ص – من الوحي والملائكة وما يخبر به من الغيب وما يأمر به وينهى عنه
And in (Sunan) al-Tirmidhi, it is narrated that he (the Prophet), peace be upon him, said: “If I had not been sent (as a prophet and messenger) among you, ‘Umar would have been sent (as a prophet and messenger) among you.”
Due to this, ‘Umar knew whatsoever reached the Prophet, peace be upon him, through wahy, and through angels, and whatsoever he (the Prophet) was informed about from the Unseen, and whatsoever he (the Prophet) ordered, and whatsoever he forbade.
These words of Ibn Taymiyyah are heavy indeed. What we understand from them are:
1. The hadeeth is recorded in Sunan al-Tirmidhi (when is is not)
2. ‘Umar was a perfect replacement or substitute for the Messenger of Allah
3. ‘Umar was equal with the Messenger of Allaah in knowledge!!
Apparently, Ibn Taymiyyah believed in the authenticity of that “hadeeth”, which is why he was using it as evidence. In fact, he has also DIRECTLY attributed it to the Messenger! In his Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, volume 9 page 203:
وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ضرب الحق على لسان عمر وقلبه وقال : لو لم أبعث فيكم لبعث فيكم عمر
And the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “Verily, Allaah has placed the truth upon the tongue of ‘Umar, and upon his heart” AND HE ALSO SAID, “If I had not been sent (as a prophet and messenger) among you, ‘Umar would have been sent (as a prophet and messenger) among you.”
We appeal to justice how can Abu Bakr a mere mortal, be superior to an individual that according to Ibn Taymiyya was a potential Prophet (s), who received wahy with knowledge on par with Rasulullah (s)? We will leave it to Ibn al Hashimi to enlighten us on how Abu Bakr can be superior in light of this fact.
As for the suggestion that Abu Bakr was most superior pursuant to the Hadeeth of the Prophet (s), allow us to cite one tradition about Ali bin Abi Talib (as) that is sufficient to delate such an assertion, by citing a tradition from the mouth of one he refers to as the First Lady of Islam, Ayesha in Yanabi al Mawaddah page 290:
Ata narrates: ‘I asked Ayesha about Ali. She replied: ‘He is the best of men; no one denies this except a Kaafir’’.
The same text has also been narrated from Hudhayfa, Jabir ibn Abdullah and Imam Ali (as) himself on the same page. Other Sunni scholars have also recorded this from the blessed lips of our Prophet (s); here is a list of where it can be located:
“Ali is the best of Men, and the denial is nothing but Kufr”
Kanz ul Ummal, Hadith 33046
A salafy website with the book “Min hadith Khaithema bin Sulaiman” by Khaithema bin Sulaiman Al-Qusashi also records:
علي خير البشر من أبي فقد كفر
“Ali is the best of Men, and the denial of which is nothing but Kufr”
Whilst Ibn al Hashimi is relying on teh supposed testimony of Amr ibn aas, general of Muawiyah at Sifeen, to evidence that Ayesha and Abu Bakr were the most beloved in the eyes of Rasulullah (s), we will cite the testimony of 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:
Amro 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’.
Now according Ibn Aas, Rasulullah (s) told him that Abu Bakr and Ayesha were the most superior, yet here we see that Ayesha certainly did not concur with this, rather she told the Prophet (s) that she knew he (s) deemed Ali (as) and Fatima (as) to be superior, something that the Prophet (s) did not deny.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Superiority of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)
Thirty-three thousand Sahabah pledged their Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Muslim masses recognized the superiority of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) above all the other Sahabah, and they came to this conclusion after reflecting on the words of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself. 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)
In another Hadith, we read:
“We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best (of the Sahabah)…”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3655)
It was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was chosen by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to be the Imam of the prayers in the Prophet’s sickness, and therefore this is indeed an indication that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saw Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as the most suitable successor. He did not state this directly, because then the people would view this as a religious obligation to be imposed on people, as opposed to the will of the people (as is just). But the people rightfully interpreted it as the Prophet’s “vote” for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and it is therefore no surprise that 33,000 Sahabah pledged Baya’ah to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and nobody else.
As for Ali (رضّى الله عنه), he himself did not view himself superior to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Although Ali (رضّى الله عنه) may have felt for a small stretch of time that he was more fitted for the Caliphate, he would reverse this position, evidenced by the sayings of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) later in life. Ali’s son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), narrated:
I said to my father: “Whom of the people was the best after the Messenger of Allah?”
He (Ali) said: “Abu Bakr.”
(Sahih Bukhari, 3671)
In another narration, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“No one is brought to me who regards me as superior to Abu Bakr and Umar but I will punish him with a beating like a fabricator.”
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: It was narrated that he (Ali) used to speak from the minbar of Kufa and say that the best of this Ummah after our Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was Abu Bakr and then Umar. This was narrated from him via more than eighty Isnads, and it was narrated by Bukhari and others. (Manhaj al-Sunnah, 1/308)
Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:
“The best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr.”
(Musnad Ahmad, 839)
The rules of Sunni / Shia polemics dictate that Sunni narrations cannot be advanced as Hujjah for the Shia and vice versa. Since Ibn al Hashimi has cited Sunni traditions and with it the viewpoint of Master Nawasib Ibn Taymiyya they have no importance to us whatsover. If they are however fond of relying on such evidence then perhaps they could answer the following:
Whilst we have cited the above text from Hizb-ut Tahrir’s book “The Khilafah” the rejection can also be found in Sharh Fiqh Akbar and Tarikh Tabari, a fact we have evidenced in other articles on our site.
4. If Maula Ali (as) affirmed that the Shaikhain were superior, why do we have Umar’s own testimony with regards to the views that Ali (as) and Abbas had of him and his predecessor:
“When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishones [Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349].
When Imam Ali (as) as per the testimony of Umar deemed him and Abu Bakr to be liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest, how did he deem them to be most superior, so much so that he even threaten to punish those that offered a variant opinion?