Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Value Of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

It should be clear that according to the beliefs of Ahlul Sunnat that are expounded in the books of Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim, Aqaid Nasafi, Sharh Aqaid Jalali and Sharh Nahdi, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was not due to the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S), it was at a result of the selection by people. Thus, it could not be said to be from Allah. It was from the side of people. Those Ahlul Sunnat, who consider it to be in keeping with divine appointment, are living in a misunderstanding. Thus, it is not proper to consider Abu Bakr as the Caliph of the prophet, because the people had selected him.

In Sharh Aqaide Nasafi1 , it is written that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat regarding Caliphate and Imamate is that for it to be valid it is necessary that all the people should have consensus on Caliphate. Then there is election; that it is for people to select an Imam and not Allah according to Quran and tradition, because the Holy Prophet (S) said that one who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies a death of disbelief. Due to this, after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) considered it the most important duty to select an Imam. They considered the appointment of Imam to be more important than even the burial of the Holy Prophet (S).

Readers! Please note! One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of infidelity. This only implies that the recognition of the Imam is obligatory and not the selection of an Imam. In such a condition, by giving preference to the selection of Imam over the burial of Prophet, the people committed two sins. One is that Abu Bakr and the other participants of Saqifah Bani Sadah were deprived of the rewards of participating in the burial of the Holy Prophet (S). Secondly, the selection of the Imam was itself an innovation. There is no doubt that innovation is deviation. The selection of Imam was an innovation because there is no proof of selection of Imam from Quran and tradition.

If it had been an obligatory duty, the Almighty would have informed about it and the Holy Prophet (S) would also have mentioned that ‘after me you may undertake election and select anyone as my successor.’ In the same way, the selection of Imam is also an illogical act because sometimes reason earns rewards and sometimes it becomes eligible for punishment. Therefore, the Almighty Allah refrained people to use reason where there was no Quranic verse or tradition regarding something.

“O Muhammad! Therefore, do not follow (your) conjectures…”2

Thus, if such a command is for the Prophet, how can the people be allowed to use their opinion for formulation of religious laws. Allah also says:

“Surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.”3

In other words, from the aspect of both religious text (Nass) and reason, the selection of Imam was an innovation committed by the people of Saqifah and it informs us of their deviation. Now, we have to see whether anyone can be selected by ‘election’ for the post of Prophet or Caliph of Prophet. It is well- known that since the time of Adam (a.s.), till the Holy Prophet (S) there has never been a single instance when a prophet or the Caliph of a prophet was selected by the ‘election’ of people.

Prophets and Caliphs were always appointed by Allah. The Almighty Allah made Adam (a.s.) a prophet as well as His Caliph. In the same way, the Almighty Allah made Dawood (a.s.) His Prophet and also appointed him as His Caliph. This proves that prophethood is from Allah and not from the people.

The appointment of Abu Bakr by the people was a sort of innovation and a new system. It was a pity that the Caliph of the greatest Prophet should neither be appointed by the Prophet himself nor by Allah, and that he should be selected by a group of people that did not even deserve to be called a perfect group. That is some people should gather and select him as the Caliph in a casual way.

If there had to be a real consensus for the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, if not from all the lands of Islam, at least the leaders of various Arab tribes who had embraced Islam should have been invited. Here the position was, that leave alone the tribes of other than Medina, even the tribe of Bani Hashim, which resided in Medina, was not informed, while it was also related to the Holy Prophet (S).

Umar hurriedly called for the hand of Abu Bakr and an instant ‘marriage’ was performed, thus making him the Caliph. Many companions also did not participate in this ‘election’. For example Zubair, Utbah, Khalid, Miqdad, Salman, Abu Dharr, Baraa and Ubayy, who were having some inclination to Ali (a.s.). By studying all the events, we realize that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was neither from the side of Allah nor was it absolutely from the side of people. No one in his proper sense could call this defective Ijma ‘an election’.

Evidently, it seems that if with this haste, Umar had not made Abu Bakr the Caliph, and he had initiated a proper system of election, it would not have been possible for Abu Bakr to become the Caliph so easily. In the end, it is my humble statement that the belief of Ahlul Sunnat that the Holy Prophet (S) had not appointed anyone as his successor is an invalid assertion. The truth is that by the command of Allah, the Holy Prophet (S) had appointed Ali (a.s.) his Caliph, practically and by his statements.

But his selfish community (Ummah) rejected his choice. Though apparently the choice was of the Holy Prophet (S), actually it was that of the Almighty. There can be no doubt in its validity. Ali (a.s.) was indeed such a great person that he had no equal in the Ummah of the Prophet and his selection as a Caliph carried many advantages, as mentioned by the writer in the foregoing pages. We should know that the Prophet and Allah dictate the affair of Caliphate. The ‘election’ (Ijma) of Ummah cannot interfere in it. As we see in these words of Allah:

“And set out to them an example of the people of the town, when the messenger came to it. When We sent to them two, they rejected both of them, then We strengthened (them) with a third, so they said: Surely we are messengers to you.”4

The incident is that Isa (a.s.) sent two of his Caliphs or representative to Antioch but the people denied them both. Then the two were helped by a third representative. In this verse, the Almighty has mentioned the act of Isa (a.s.) as His own act and says: “We sent…”

Indeed, this verse clearly proves that Caliphate or representation of Prophet cannot be by anyway, except by the Prophet or Almighty Allah. Rather, this verse also proves that even a prophet is not allowed to appoint his Caliph. He has to take permission of Allah. He mentions in Surah Taha:

“And give to me an aider from my family: Haroon my brother, strengthen my back by him, and associate him (with me) in my affair.”5

This proves that Moosa (a.s.) requested Allah to appoint Haroon as his vizier. This proves that if a Caliph could be appointed by the people, what was the need of Moosa (a.s.) to pray to Allah for this? After the acceptance of this prayer, we learn that Moosa (a.s.) told his brother: You are my Caliph for my people after me.

“And Moosa said to his brother Haroon: Take my place among my people…”6

If Moosa (a.s.) did not value the permission of Allah, he would have appointed Haroon his Caliph or he would have gone to meet the Lord without appointing anyone as his Caliph and the Bani Israel could have appointed a Caliph of their own choice. Regarding the appointment of Haroon (a.s.) as the Caliph, the Almighty says in Surah Furqan:

“And We appointed with him his brother, Haroon an aider.”7

This clearly shows that only Allah has the authority to appoint the Caliph or representative of a prophet. No prophet has the right to select anyone as his Caliph or representative. May Allah be merciful on the nation (Ummah) which appointed Abu Bakr as the Caliph after the Prophet and they did not try to see the choice of Prophet and Allah. The establishment of belief by these people that Allah and the Prophet had not appointed anyone as Caliph is very astonishing. Reason cannot accept it. That the Caliphs of the previous prophets be appointed by Allah by special arrangements and the Prophet’s Ummah be not given any Caliph and it should be left like cattle to select its own Caliph.

Indeed, this Ummah has more importance in comparison to the past nations. To get such careless treatment by Allah is against reason. Indeed, Allah and the Prophet appointed Ali (a.s.) as the Caliph on Muslims, as clear from the event of Ghadeer Khumm. But the world-seeking people preferred the bounty of the world to the bounties of the Hereafter and did not accept Ali (a.s.) the Caliph.

In brief, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr cannot be in anyway from the side of Allah. It also seems to be deficient in being referred to as being from the people. When the Caliphate of Abu Bakr is such, the Caliphate of Umar cannot have any value, whatsoever. That is, his Caliphate is from such a Caliph who himself was not a Caliph from Allah, and it was even doubtful, if he could be called from the people.

Thus, the Caliphate of Umar was itself baseless. From this aspect, he was only the Caliph of Abu Bakr. To think that he was from the Messenger of Allah (S) is wrong. The tradition itself that “the thirty years…” is the period of the Righteous Caliphate is a concocted tradition. If the tradition is really from the Prophet, the total period of four Caliphates had reached 30 years. But this period of 30 years is not complete even after adding the six months of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.). Indeed, this tradition is fabricated and it was most probably fabricated so that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs should be said to have been acceptable to the Holy Prophet (S) and thus should be accepted as the Righteous Caliphates.

Notes

1. Pg. 94

2. Surah Nisa 4:135

3. Surah Najm 53:28

4. Surah Yasin 36:13-14

5. Surah Taha 20:29-32

6. Surah Araaf 7:142

7. Surah Furqan 25:35

Caliphate From People Or Caliphate From Allah

The writer has already shown the political necessity of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.), according to which, if Ali (a.s.) had been appointed a Caliph after the Holy Prophet (S), his Caliphate would have been from the people. Just as the Caliphates of the three Caliphs is considered to be from the people, by Ahlul Sunnat. However, it is not the religious belief of the writer and Shias that Ali (a.s.) should have been the Caliph due to political exigency.

The religious belief of the Imamites is that Ali (a.s.) is the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S) by the leave of Allah. His appointment as Caliph was not in need of selection by people. It was only Allah that had made him the successor of His Prophet in the world and in the religious sphere. It is a link of the complete series of spiritual Caliphate and Imamate. The material factors are in no way allowed to interfere in it.

A Close Look At The Present Situation Of The World

On this point, the writer advises that a rational person should look with a critical mind, anything that is related to religion, politics and poetry or any other art. He must not be biased or bigoted. For if he sees the world through these eyes, he would not able to see the truth. There are very few truth-loving people in the world. Such are very few who could form an independent opinion. Most of the people can only follow blindly. The results of blind following does not need to be mentioned. The duty of man is to always try to unravel the truth.

First, he must work hard to do research and only then should he form an opinion. But those who look for truth and those who seek the truth and those who see the truth are very less in the world. Most of the people are such that they form an opinion without investigation and begin to act on it. Such people cannot form an opinion based on research. If their companion says that in China the crows are white, they would believe it without going to China or confirming it with a native of China or from a book of natural science. This is the condition of common people. They could not be expected to carry out independent research.

It is on this basis that the writer has no hope that this book will become very much popular. Since the writing is not aimed at common people, it is not expected that except for people of discerning minds, anyone else will like it. This book does not contain things that are required for popularity. First of all, it is not printed in colored ink. Secondly, the results of the research are not the same as the views held by common people. Thirdly, this book is different from Asian taste.

Fourthly, this book is filled with discussions of Muhammad’s Progeny. Apparently, it is not a taste of the Islamic world of this country that the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny should be propagated freely and that they should be seen in a wise way. Indeed, this book is not written keeping in mind the conditions of the present age. It is not to please any ruler, any wealthy person or a particular sect. The only aim of this book is public good. The writer does not expect any monetary benefit. He only intends to express the truth. By the praise of Allah, till date, the writing of this book has continued in the path of expressing the truth.

Obviously, the writer has no worldly greed through it that he should have deviated from the straight path. Selfishness and bigotry have never been allowed any scope therein. And why should he have deviated from the path of truth, while he had no intention to hurt the feelings of anyone or to usurp the rights of others. He considers all such things to be degrading. When the writer of this book had no desire for fame and greed for wealth or intention for gaining honor, why he should have taken up such freedoms. Anyone, who is needless of the world and the people and not dependant upon any government or authority, if even such a person cannot write the truth, only Allah can help him. Obviously, such a person would not be eligible for Divine Mercy.

Caliphate Of The Prophet In The View Of The Two Sects

It should be clear that the religious differences between Shia and Sunni are not that their twelve Caliphs are different. Rather, it is that Ahlul Sunnat consider their Caliphs to be appointed by people, while Shias consider that vicegerency of the Holy Prophet (S) could never be from people. It has to be from Allah. This difference clearly shows that Caliphate from the side of the people is something, which has no interference of divine revelation and neither is infallibility a requirement of it.

On the other hand, Caliphate from the side of Allah is a spiritual affair, which could not be possible without Allah’s permission. Ahlul Sunnat consider Caliphate same as selection of Presidents in democratic governments. No one can say that the Presidents of America, Europe and France have been appointed by divine revelation. Everyone knows that the appointment of such people is from the public. On the basis of this, Ahlul Sunnat consider the Caliphate of their Twelve Caliphs to be based on election or consultation or force, and consider it valid for these reasons. Obviously, all these conditions have no spiritual aspect.

In brief, Ahlul Sunnat regard Caliphate in a way that when the Prophet passed away from the world, Abu Bakr became the Caliph by consensus. When he passed away, he nominated Umar as his successor and when Umar was on his deathbed, he left Caliphate at the discretion of Consultative Committee (Shura).

Uthman was appointed as Caliph through Shura Committee. It is not clear from any Sunni book, by which principle Ali (a.s.) became the Caliph. Anyway, when it was the time of Muawiyah’s Caliphate, he became the rightful Caliph by obtaining it through force.

Obviously, it is an unscrupulous method of Caliphate, so there could not any basis for it in revelation. Therefore, we should know that the Caliphate from the side of the people is the belief of Ahlul Sunnat in particular. And due to this belief, many scholars of the sect, like Allamah Nawawi, the commentator of Sahih Muslim and Allamah Ibn Hajar, author of Fathul Bari and Imam Razi, the writer of Nihayatul Uqool etc. do not believe that the Caliphates of the three Caliphs or other Caliphs are based on Quranic or traditional injunctions.

But there are some Sunni scholars who are not completely satisfied with this mundane way of selecting the Caliph. And even in the people of that time, there was no Sunni who could prefer to consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr an independent result of consensus. The writer has tried his best to find out the beliefs of contemporary Sunni scholars and the result that he has obtained is that they all consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be in the way as Shias believe in the divine sanction of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.).

Now the matter to be investigated is, is there any Quranic verse or prophetic tradition, according to which Abu Bakr or the Caliphs after him attained their posts? These Sunni scholars have tried to prove the Caliphate of Abu Bakr with the help of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions and Shias have refuted these dissertations. There is no scope in this book to discuss the arguments of the two sects. Its aim is centered around the tragedy of Karbala’.

This book has no relation to the arguments whether the Caliphate of the three Caliphs was right or not? The writer just had to show the relationship of this Caliphate with the tragedy of Karbala’, and this relationship has already been explained. The writer has not argued with all the traditions and verses that Ahlul Sunnat use to prove the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, but he will only discuss two verses in the following pages. One of the verses is considered by Ahlul Sunnat to be particularly the proof of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and the second verse supports the Caliphate of the Rightful Caliphs. The readers are requested to study these verses and see if these verses in any way prove the Caliphate of the Caliphs?

Verse Of The Cave

Ahlul Sunnat present the verse of the cave to support the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The complete verse is as follows:

“If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see…”1

Ahlul Sunnat people prove various merits of Abu Bakr from this verse. Even the Caliphate and rulership of Abu Bakr could be derived from this verse. The Imamites say that leave alone Caliphate, it does not prove any special quality of Abu Bakr. Rather, it seems to be just the opposite. To know the truth, we shall study the parts of this verse, there are many portions of this verse that are points of contention.

First of all is ‘Thani Ithnain’ (the second of the two), secondly, ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion), thirdly, ‘Laa Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us), fourthly, ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (tranquility upon him). Below, we shall discuss each of these portions in detail. First of all, regarding: “The second of the two”, Ahlul Sunnat say that the second of the two is Abu Bakr who is the second person after the Messenger of Allah (S) who is nominated for the fulfillment of religious responsibility after the Holy Prophet (S).

The Imamites say that the second of the two denotes the Holy Prophet (S) himself and not Abu Bakr and there is no indication of conferment of religious authority in the verse. The Almighty is complaining about those people who are not helpful to his Prophet (S). They are such that either they avoid Jihad or flee from the battlefield, instead of sacrificing their life. Abu Bakr himself was one of those who had fled the battlefield. Or there were such people, who could not help the Prophet in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn and they left him and ran away. Then the meaning of “second of the two” and the “third of the three” is “one of the two” and “one of the three.” Here the “second of the two” is that same “one of the two” who was one of the two people in the cave and who was comforting the other.

Apparently, this comforting one was the Holy Prophet (S) and not Abu Bakr. This portion of the verse in no way proves the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and it has no relation to Caliphate or rulership. Although there is no cure for religious obstinacy.

Second: ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion): Ahlul Sunnat say that ‘Le Saahebehi’ (for his companion) has proved the companionship of Abu Bakr. The Imamites do not deny the companionship of Abu Bakr, but they say that companionship on its own is not something that deserves to be praised, if there is absence of belief or faith. Only that companion of the Holy Prophet (S) is deserving of honor, who has faith; and mere companionship is of no use.

What is the use of such a companion, who is denounced in the words of Allah? As Allah mentions about those companions who avoided Jihad or who were the first to flee the battle, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) in danger. Apparently, this verse does not even mention those characteristics of companionship that are generally accepted by the people. Here, companion means one who was with the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, that is Abu Bakr. This is the apparent meaning of that companion. Apart from this, the Arabic word of Sahab is not a word whose use is limited to special people. It can be used for ordinary people also, as mentioned in Surah Yusuf:

“O my two mates of the prison! Are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme?”2

It is used for people who had no sort of worldly or religious power. The Arabic word of Sahab does not prove any merit for Abu Bakr.

Thirdly: ‘La Tahzan Inallah Maana’ (grieve not, surely Allah is with us): Ahlul Sunnat say that these words prove that the Messenger of Allah (S) comforted Abu Bakr and made him his partner in receiving Allah’s help and peace. The Imamiyah say that these words do not indicate any merit for Abu Bakr or anyone else. The condition is that Abu Bakr did not give up his native place for helping the Prophet or the religion of Islam.

When he left Mecca with the Holy Prophet (S) in order to escape the enemies, the Holy Prophet (S) took refuge in a cave and Abu Bakr also entered the cave. But Abu Bakr was so nervous in the cave that he started weeping in fear of the enemies. The Holy Prophet (S) comforted him and asked why he was weeping? But despite this, he did not stop crying. Obviously, in such a condition, while the Holy Prophet (S) was inside a dark cave to escape the enemies, it was very much necessary that they should be quiet and peaceful. This untimely crying would have given them away, because the enemies had come out to search for the Holy Prophet (S).

It is surprising that when Saraqa reached the mouth of the cave, the weeping of Abu Bakr did not stop. If that enemy of Islam had entered the cave, Abu Bakr would hardly have been able to defend the Holy Prophet (S), keeping in mind that he was already crying in fear. The Holy Prophet (S) would have had to fight a duel with that enemy of Islam alone. Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) comforted such a chicken-hearted companion in the words:

“Do not grieve, certainly Allah is with us.”

So what is the merit of such a companion? Rather, it certainly indicates that the companion of the Holy Prophet (S), in spite of knowing that the Almighty will not allow His Prophet to be killed at the hands of infidels, had no faith in Allah.

We should know that as with ‘La Tahzan’ (Do not grieve…), Ahlul Sunnat prove many merits of Abu Bakr by the words ‘Inallaha Maana’ (certainly Allah is with us). They show many types of companionships with ‘Maana’ (with us).

Truly, priesthood (Maulviyat) is a strange thing. Sometimes they decorate their speeches to say that the companionship was of help and assistance and sometimes it was companionship in knowledge. In the end, they also show that the words of the Prophet prove the companionship of Allah with Abu Bakr. The Imamites say these are all wordplays. Actually, it is nothing worthy of mention that could prove any merit of Abu Bakr. The Holy Prophet (S) was comforting him not to be sorrowful, Allah is their helper and aider. ‘You think that enemies have arrived and who is it that will help you? Do not be aggrieved Allah is our helper and friend.’

The Imamites also refute Ahlul Sunnat saying, that here the Prophet has said ‘Maana’ (with us) denoting ‘Maaii’ (with me) and it is a style in Arabic to speak in plural form. In the Urdu language too, instead of singular, we speak in plurals. Thus instead of ‘I’ we say ‘We’. Is it necessary that ‘Maana’ (with us) should be considered ‘Maaii’ (with me)? The clear thing is that just as Allah was with the Holy Prophet (S), He was also with Abu Bakr and was with every creature; He was and He shall remain to be so. Thus, what merit could anyone have in this type of companionship?

Thus, the Holy Prophet (S) said ‘Maana’ (with us). This does not prove any merit of people, rather it proves the quality of Allah that He is with everyone. In my view, Shias are not required to say that ‘Maana’ (with us) is used in place of ‘Maaii’ (with me).

A Shia scholar says that if Ahlul Sunnat say regarding ‘Maana’ (with us) that we do not like to use plural instead of singular and it is necessary that instead of one, two people must be included in it, we shall say that the second person is Ali (a.s.). That when the Holy Prophet (S) asked Abu Bakr why he was weeping, as Shah Waliullah writes in Izalatul Khifa that Abu Bakr said: “I am not crying for myself. I am crying for Ali (a.s.). That he must have been killed and I am crying for you that soon you will be martyred.”

Then the Holy Prophet (S) said Allah is with both of us. This means that “Allah is the helper of me and Ali (a.s.).” On this point, both the scholars of Shia and Sunni have indulged in word play. The reply of each sect is as per the objection of every sect. On top of this is the statement of Shah Waliullah. Now I ask: O Imamites! What did you lose if ‘Maana’ (with us) includes Abu Bakr? Indeed, Abu Bakr was included in this ‘Maana’(with us). And if there had been a third, even an infidels, he would also have been included in this ‘Maana’ (with us). And Ahlul Sunnat are requested to consider what merit is obvious from the fact if Abu Bakr was indeed included in this?

The fact is that those who indulge in religious argumentation are distanced from nature, which is why they are prone to such unnatural views. Here, the arguments of the two sects are mere arguments. It is astonishing that a scholar of the caliber of Shah Waliullah should write such weak statements, as mentioned above. No sane person will give importance and consider true, such imaginative affairs. Such a person would consider the writing of Shah Waliullah to be unreliable and away from truth.

It is surprising that the Holy Prophet (S) did not weep for Ali (a.s.) in the cave, while it was Abu Bakr who wept. The condition of Abu Bakr himself was so tense that it seems unlikely he would worry about Ali (a.s.) and weep for him. Indeed, the cause of this weeping was the weak-heartedness of Abu Bakr. The truth is that he never wept for anyone. If the statement of Shah Waliullah is that he wept for Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S), it is an ignorant action. Fear is a natural feeling. Very few people could be said to possess bravery. Thus, one who is not made brave, cannot be blamed for cowardice.

I also do not agree with the claim of Imamite writers, who say that Abu Bakr was weeping and wailing, so that enemies may learn of their presence and enter the cave. In my view, Abu Bakr never wailed for this purpose. He had entered the cave with utmost sincerity. He started crying when faced with this difficulty. It cannot be construed that Abu Bakr desired that the Holy Prophet (S) should be caught. Abu Bakr stood to gain more if the Holy Prophet (S) remained safe and sound. He was not a wealthy person nor his tribe had any superiority. He had taken up companionship of the Prophet only because through this, he would gain monetary progress.

Thus, by living in Medina, and through trade and war booty, his economical conditions improved till the time that after the Holy Prophet (S) he also became the ruler of Muslims. Abu Bakr was a very clever person. He could never desire Prophet’s death, while he was with him in the cave. Shah Waliullah agrees that the weeping of Abu Bakr was due to fear and fear is rooted in a weak heart.

Thus, this action of Abu Bakr is not deserving of any praise. In such a delicate moment, though it was indeed harmful for the Holy Prophet (S) if one wept loudly, but it was also against wisdom to weep quietly. In such a situation, it is the duty of every companion to reassure each other, rather than creating nervousness. But this incident shows that the Holy Prophet (S) was a very stable minded and a valiant person. That he kept his emotions intact in such perilous circumstances and even comforted Abu Bakr. In brief, what merit does this verse shows of Abu Bakr? Except for Ahlul Sunnat, no one has become cognizant of any such points.

Fourthly: From the words ‘Sakanatahu Alaihe’ (Allah sent down His tranquility upon him) Ahlul Sunnat show that the Almighty sent peace on Abu Bakr and this informs us of the high status of Abu Bakr. Imamites say that peace was sent by Allah on His respected Prophet. That in such a serious situation, when his companion had started weeping due to fear, it was necessary for the companion to console his counterpart.

The Almighty Allah sent peace on the Prophet (S) and helped Him with armies invisible to the human eye. People of justice may see whether the relation of this peace is with the Prophet or Abu Bakr. It is well-known that the verse refers to peace on the Holy Prophet (S). It seems from the life history of Abu Bakr that apart from that cave he never had peace of mind. It seems irrational that one should be given peace of Allah and that he should leave the Prophet and flee from the battlefield, or when he goes for Jihad, he could not face the infidels due to the weakness of heart.

In such a situation, he should always have trusted Allah and he should have faced the enemies of Allah in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn. But when he had never got that peace of heart, how he could be considered recipient of Allah’s peace in the cave or anywhere else? Truth-loving people may weigh this reply of Shias in the balance of justice and the writer does not wish to express any opinion.

It should be clear that some Ahlul Sunnat people turn the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards Abu Bakr. Nawab Maulavi Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan, the writer of Ayate Bayyinat, and some other non-famous scholars also do it. But the greatest exegesists of Ahlul Sunnat clearly apply the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) towards the Messenger of Allah (S), from which the Holy Prophet (S) becomes the recipient of the peace of Allah.

Indeed, the Almighty also intended this, but priesthood is a strange thing! They always try to use the play of words in debates and discussions, even though the incident may be murdered at the altar of argumentation, but they will not change their stance. Debate means that two groups take part in a discussion and arrive at a conclusion regarding something. When it is so, what is achieved by useless contests? Now, people of justice should see that if the pronoun of ‘Alaihe’ (upon him) is turned towards, Abu Bakr, what sort of grammatical blunder is committed.

All the pronouns in this verse are applicable to the Holy Prophet (S), in between, one pronoun is construed to be for Abu Bakr. Then the pronoun after this, that is ‘Ayyadahoo’ (strengthened him) is for the Holy Prophet (S). Is there any sense in it? No, but priesthood is always indulging in such nonsense. We should see that by turning the pronoun to Abu Bakr, the beauty of the language of the Quran is lost. In brief, the verse of the cave is not related to the Caliphate or rulership of Abu Bakr or anyone else, and it is not in praise of anyone.

The meaning of the verse is just that Allah says: “O enemies of Islam! If you don’t help My Prophet, Allah helps him. He was even helped when infidels expelled him from his home and he took refuge in a cave. At that time, there were two people; he himself and his companion who was weeping and wailing.

In such a condition, the Prophet comforted him that Allah was with them. Then Allah sent peace on His Prophet and helped him with an army of angels.” This is all there is to it. But the interpretations that have deformed this verse, do not require a mention. The people of justice may themselves compare truth with untruth. We also present two additional points that are found in this incident:

First of all, even if we agree that Abu Bakr bravely accompanied the Holy Prophet (S) in the cave, even then when this companionship is compared to the action of Ali (a.s.) for sleeping on the bed of the Prophet, we realize that Ali’s action was more a feat of bravery than the companionship of Abu Bakr, because Ali (a.s.) slept fearlessly on the bed of the Holy Prophet (S). The natural bravery of Ali has no equal. He was a stable and a brave personality. It was the job of a loyal, Allah-knowing and religious person that Ali (a.s.) performed. Such a thing cannot be thought about Abu Bakr’s presence in the cave.

Despite this, Abu Bakr is given precedence over Ali (a.s.) and is said to be deserving of the Prophet’s successorship. It is a strange world where there is no justice! If there is justice, it is with Allah or it would be Judgment Day. In my view, it behoves a Muslim not to forgo justice. How can a bigot be a Muslim? The presence of Abu Bakr in no way makes him superior to Ali (a.s.).

But what would the people of justice say to that the Prophet said ‘La Tahzan’ (do not grieve): That clearly shows the dissatisfaction of Prophet (S) over an action of Abu Bakr. In such a situation, is Abu Bakr not proved to be inferior? Then to prefer Abu Bakr because of this, is very far from justice. Only Allah knows what this blind love for Abu Bakr will earn for Ahlul Sunnat in the hereafter? It is a strange unjust love that Quran, tradition, reason and understanding, all are murdered for it.

(2) Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes that Abu Bakr was the bravest companion. If Suyuti had just referred to Abu Bakr, it would have been something else, but to say that he was the bravest companion is an astonishing statement. Over and above, he relates a tradition of Ali (a.s.) to say that Abu Bakr was the bravest of men. That is Abu Bakr was not only braver than Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet, he was the bravest among all the people. The action of Suyuti to call Abu Bakr the bravest of the people in the words of Ali has brought out two evils: one is that Abu Bakr, who was not even an ordinary brave, is said to be the bravest.

Secondly, Ali (a.s.) and the Holy Prophet (S) who were brave in their own right, were rendered inferior. It is clear from the incident of cave that of the Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Bakr, who was braver? In the same way, it is crystal clear from the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Hunayn, how brave Abu Bakr was. Who deserves to be called braver, Abu Bakr or Ali? Till now the writer has not come to know from Quran, tradition, history, etc. how Abu Bakr was the bravest of the companions or bravest of the people. The incident of cave tells of no kind of bravery.

In fact, Abu Bakr had no experience of battles or war. But he had good experience of business. He used to go to the markets of Medina everyday and make a lot of money. It is not necessary that everyone must be a soldier. Providence neither made Abu Bakr a soldier nor Umar; both these gentlemen had different qualities. Just as Abu Bakr had business acumen, Umar was having a political mind. That is why, in the battles of the Prophet, these two gentlemen had no achievements worthy of mention. Those who fought in these battles were Ali (a.s.), other Bani Hashim and the Helpers (Ansar) of Medina. The sword of Ali (a.s.) performed great feats that are mentioned in the books of poetry and history.

If Ali (a.s.) had not been there, Islam would not have been established in Medina. The fact is that though anyone could be considered bravest, the quality of bravery was perfect only in Ali (a.s.). It is surprising that a scholar like Suyuti should also write such baseless things that are absolutely impossible.

Another inappropriate statement of Suyuti is that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of the companions and the most pure. Indeed, this is only applicable to Ali (a.s.) and none else. But there is no doubt that Abu Bakr was more knowledgeable than Umar and cleaner. In brief, we could say that bigotry is the enemy of faith. May Allah give good sense to people to speak and love the truth. Without recognizing the truth, man cannot achieve salvation in the world and the hereafter.

Notes

1. Surah Taubah 9:40

2. Surah Yusuf 12:39

Lady Fatima’s Sorrow and the Author

It may be remembered that Lady Fatima’s grief and sorrow may not be of any concern to her opponent but the writer considers it such a serious and terrible thing, which is impossible for him to put in writing. I regard the sinless lady’s grief or displeasure as a grief and displeasure of Allah and His Prophet, rather, more severe than that, because Lady Fatima is a beloved of both Allah and His Messenger.

Allah forbid, what havoc can be caused by such a sinless lady’s grief in the Hereafter? Everyone can guess it! Qadi Sanaullaah also was not unaware of the consequence of this grief, and therefore he gave the meaning of “ashamed” to “frowning.” Thanks to the Lord that the writer was not living during the time of Lady Fatima (s.a.). He cannot imagine in what way he would have erred. It is indeed his good luck that despite being full of errors and sins, he is saved from observing the grief of the Lady of Paradise. He cannot be more fortunate than this.

What Does Umar’s Behavior Show?

The abrupt and rude manner in which Umar tore down the command of the Caliph shows some things; first, there was no respect or honor of the Caliph in the heart and mind of Umar. Tearing off of the decree of the Caliph of the time and that too in his presence, makes it obvious that the one who made such an extraordinary gesture did not accord any importance to the position of the ruler. The reason of this is also not secret. Umar knew that Abu Bakr was a Caliph made by him (Umar) and that without his (Umar’s) help, his Caliphate would not run. Undoubtedly, this kind of thinking on the part of Umar was not untrue.

In such circumstances, how can the respect of the Caliph get room in the heart of Umar? This is not mere guessing. Umar definitely was pressurizing Abu Bakr to such an extent that on one occasion the latter had to complain saying: “If it is to be like this, what was the use of making me a Caliph?” Not only this, once it had so happened that Abu Bakr held Umar’s beard, crying: “May your mother weep over you (may you die).” Obviously, it is difficult to believe that a patient man like Abu Bakr will do so to anybody. But when someone crosses limits, even a patient man loses his patience. Those who have knowledge know that all these events are recorded in history. Readers may refer at least to the history of Abdul Fida, Tarikh al Mukhtasar fee Ahwaalil Bashar.

Second, the tearing off of the Caliph’s order shows that the court of justice was a court of justice only in name. Though Abu Bakr did hear cases and give decisions but their enactment or repealing was in the hands of Umar. All this goes to prove that Umar had made Abu Bakr as a strategic Caliph, while practically it was Umar himself who was the Caliph. After two years, this concealment no longer remained necessary.

Third, the aforesaid gesture of Umar also shows that Abu Bakr’s court of justice was not bound by any rules. Apparently, Umar nor anybody else had any such legal right to annul the Caliph’s order in this way. We don’t know what was the official post of Umar at the time of the first Caliphate. If he was a government pleader, then certainly a government pleader has no such right to tear off the Caliph’s decree in such a humiliating manner. And if he was holding a post higher than that of the Caliph of the time in the court of justice, even then this type of interruption in the dealing of a subordinate court does not appear appropriate and legal. Fourth, such deeds of Umar make his enmity to Lady Fatima and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) quite obvious.

It looks quite clear that from the very beginning, Umar was trying to assure that Fadak is not restored to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and this enmity of Umar to Fatima is no secret. Only those who close their eyes cannot observe this malice and enmity. Fifth, a very ugly kind of harshness becomes apparent from all these deeds of Umar. Taking this into consideration, the commentator of Nahjul Balagha writes: “Even if law or right was not in favor of Lady Fatima, the Caliphate ought to have taken it into account that Fatima was a grief stricken woman claimant, her parents had passed away and the demise of her father had made her extremely gloomy.”

I say that at the time of writing about such sympathetic words, the commentator forgot that even before the case of Fadak and after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) the condolence given to the Lady of Paradise by the Caliphate was that Umar was sent by Abu Bakr to burn down the house of this lady1 or he had proceeded of his own. When such a harsh treatment was given soon after the Prophet’s demise, any sympathetic or mild attitude could not have at all been expected at the time of Fadak proceedings in the court of law, which was after quite a long period of time. Why look only at this matter of Fadak?

A look at history shows that the Ummah of the Prophet imagined that it was unlawful to behave nicely with the holy progeny of Prophet! Even today, this behavior is no less visible. Only those descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaats) who had left the path of Bani Hashim and entered the path of Sunni, expect less enmity from the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S). Otherwise, those who stayed on the path of their elders are even today fearing the same bad attitude from the Prophet’s Ummah, which had begun right from the moment of the demise of the Messenger.

Note

1. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

Legal Viewpoint in the Fadak Affair

It should be remembered that this event of Fadak, like that of the ‘incident of paper’, is an issue of major difference between Shias and Sunnis. The men of intelligence may opine in their own manner, but I could not yet understand as to what kind of Prophet’s word were, “There is no inheritance among us prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity,” which goes against both Torah and Quran. The Holy Quran clearly talks about Prophet Sulaiman’s being an heir of Prophet Dawood (a.s.). The subject in Taurat is also similar.

For obvious reasons, these words cannot be the words of the Prophet. It could have been another thing had the Prophet said so in his own case. His so saying regarding all other messengers appears totally out of place. Imamiyah scholars say that these words “we do not leave inheritance” are both against Arab literary usage as well as tradition. So this cannot be a phrase uttered by the Prophet, because he was one of the best speakers of Arabic language.

Qadi Shazan seems to be silent in the face of this objection. What else could he have ever done when he had no reply at all? It was a fake phrase, because from Sahih Bukhari1 it appears that the Prophet had left ‘his white mule on which he used to ride, his weapons, and the estate of Fadak’ as his inheritance. Likewise, his leaving behind of some other things is also known from books like, Isafur Raghebeen etc.2 , and all this does not fall in the jurisdiction of the said phrase, making them non-inheritable because the Prophet’s other things like headwear etc. were with Imam Husayn (at the time of Karbala’) by way of inheritance, not as charity (Sadaqah).

Anyway, because of this Fadak event, a jurisprudential difference arose between Sunnis and Shias and it is that in the matter of testimony, the witness of a husband in favor of his wife and/or a father’s testimony in favor of his son/daughter is not acceptable.3 Contrary to this, Shias have accepted such testimony as admissible in law.

Apparently, in this matter, the legal progress of time seems to be in favor of Shias. Wisdom also says that it is not necessary that a husband or a father will always lie because of the relationship and a non- related fellow too, just like a related one, can give false evidence. How can such persons be declared as unreliable in law merely because of their relations? The judge should look at the person’s character. To declare a witness inadmissible merely because of relationship is to kill justice.

In case of Fadak, the court ought to have seen what kind of a witness Ali (a.s.) was. Could Ali (a.s.) give a false testimony? Or was it impossible? To declare him unfit for testimony merely because of relationship is a matter, which shows only a lack of legal courage. The court should have admitted the testimony of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) because the whole world of that time was aware of his personality. Everyone knew about the superiority of knowledge and wisdom of Ali (a.s.) and also knew that Ali would not lie even if two thousand Fadaks were at stake.

The fact is that both Abu Bakr and Umar were aware of the truthfulness of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) but Umar did not want that Fadak should be restored to Lady Fatima. It is natural that one does not have friendship with one’s enemy or opponent. Umar had an old enmity with Lady Fatima. In such circumstances, it was not unexpected of Umar to say that Ali’s testimony did not carry weight. The description of this enmity will be given in the event of the marriage of Umme Kulthum. Therefore it is not mentioned here.

Notes

1. Vol. 5, Pg. 159.

2. Pg. 10

3. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Naval Kishor Press, Maqsad Raabe az marsad Raabe, Pg. 735

Helpers Of Judgment On Fadak

Those who had helped to get the aforesaid decision in the matter of Fadak say that “if Fadak was confiscated illegally from Lady Fatima, why was it not returned to her during the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? This only shows that Fatima’s claim was unfair.” The reply to this question is that if the research of Fakhruddin Razi is correct, during the days of Imam Ali (a.s.) Caliphate, Fadak was in the possession of Ali (a.s.). What was then he to take back?

The said Imam (Razi) writes: “The first Caliph despite the testimony of Umme Aiman, did not give Fadak to Lady Fatima and that Umar gave it to Ali (a.s.) and so it was in the possession of Ali at the time of the latter’s Caliphate.” This does provide a sort of answer to the one who raised the question. But in my view, this statement of Fakhruddin Razi is far from circumstantial evidence. Why would Umar do like that? Fadak was continuously out of the hands of Muhammad’s Progeny. It was returned to them for the first time by Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Anyway, the writer replies to the questioner that had Lady Fatima been alive during the days of Ali’s Caliphate he would certainly have given Fadak to her, because he was certain that the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted the property to Fatima. Had he not been aware of this fact, he would not have been produced as a witness by Lady Fatima but when Fatima was no more, Ali (a.s.) did not pay any attention to the matter of Fadak. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) was terribly grieved by the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) and his heart was never inclined to renew all the unpleasant events afresh.

Those who know the conditions of human heart can read more in my statement. But how can stonehearted, harsh-natured and selfish people know what sentiments are and what they demand? Moreover, immediately after his becoming a Caliph, people had started harassing him too much. Muawiyah misled ‘A’ysha and instigated her to fight against Ali (a.s.), Zubair and Talha broke allegiance and joined ‘A’ysha. This led to the Battle of Camel.

Then from Muawiyah’s side, there was a severe uproar and anarchy till the time of Ali (a.s.) martyrdom. How could he pay any attention to Fadak, being engaged in all these troubles? The fact is that during the period of Caliphate, which was a national and a religious affair, he had no time at all to look at his personal problems in those four years and five months. Due to these reasons, Fadak, which had gone out of hands of Ahlul Bayt, remained out of their possession during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) also.

The Rest of the Fadak Tragedy

What happened to Fadak thereafter, was that Umar bin Abdul Aziz gave Fadak to Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.). It should be noted that among the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, this is the only one who can be said to have humane qualities. The rest of the Caliphs’ rule was nightmare, or they were the ones whom humanness had not even touched. When this Caliph, Umar the second, restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt, people told him: “You have taunted the first two Shaykhs (Caliphs).”1 In response the Caliph said: “The two Shaykhs had, by confiscating Fadak, opened a door of taunts for themselves.”

It should be remembered that Umar bin Abdul Aziz was among the last Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and it is a fact that he was very justice-loving among Bani Umayyah and it was because of his good and truth-loving nature that he restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt. But in response to his just nature his community poisoned him. Truthfulness in the matter of Ahlul Bayt is not an easy thing. Such truth-telling involved a sure risk to life during the Caliphates of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. But now since the British are ruling2 , a risk to life is not more felt. Yet various harms are not totally ruled out.

Anyway, when the Caliphate went out of the hands of Bani Umayyah those Caliphs of Bani Abbas, who cared for the rights of Ahlul Bayt, like Mamoon, Motasim and Wathiq, had returned Fadak to the progeny of Lady Fatima. But then Mutawakkil, the Ahlul Bayt-hater (Nasibi) again snatched it from Ahlul Bayt and gave it to his barber. But Mutazz once again restored it to Fatima’s progeny. Then Motaqifa returned it to Ahlul Bayt but Muktafi again snatched it.

It is written in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid on Pg. 493 that, “When Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the Caliph, he returned Fadak to the progeny of Hasan and according to another narration to the progeny of Zainul Aabideen and thus Fadak continuously remained in the hands of Bani Fatima but in his time, Yazeed Aatikaa snatched it.

Thereafter, it remained in the hands of the progeny of Marwan. Thereafter, Saffah, the Abbasid returned it to Abdullah bin Hasan, but Abu Ja’far Mansoor again snatched it. Then Mahdi Abbasi returned it to Bani Fatima. Then Moosa bin Mahdi and his brother Haroon Rashid confiscated it and it remained in the hands of Abbasids thereafter. Then Haroon Rashid returned it to Bani Fatima.

Notes

1. Ref. the narration of Abul Qadam in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, Pg. 306

2. Refers to the period this book was compiled.

Opponents Make Light of the Fadak Affair

With a view to lessen the importance of the Fadak affair, the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.) say that the matter of Fadak was never significant, that it was only an orchard with some date trees etc. and hence its income was not considerable. One of the recent claimants of omniscience goes further to assert that the orchard comprised of sixteen or seventeen date trees and a spring of water and and that its annual income never exceeded fourteen annas1 (very less amount).

Such statements are issued, so that those who have no knowledge may imagine that the matter of Fadak was insignificant, about which the people in favor of Fatima (s.a.) are raising so much hue and cry quite unnecessarily. But those who undertake a deep research, know that Fadak was a hamlet, which was very fertile and well populated that there were several orchards and springs in it.

The writings of the author of Rauzatul Safa show that its annual income was four thousand gold coins. One dirham equals ten rupees. From this account, its income in those days was about forty thousand rupees per year. This is what history says. Anyway, it was a considerable amount and was in no way insignificant. The claim that it was worth only fourteen annas (less than a rupee) cannot be accepted as authentic for the following reasons:

Had the annual income of Fadak been only equal to fourteen annas (sixteen annas made a rupee till the last century AD), its dealing would not have been as described above, that is how was it that some of the Caliphs were snatching it away from Muhammad’s Progeny and some were restoring it to them? All this only goes to show that in the eyes of the Caliphs of the time, Fadak did have some importance and value!

Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to Muhammad’s Progeny. Had the matter been so insignificant, as claimed by the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.), it would not have been necessary for a justice-loving Caliph to attend to it after about a hundred years of confiscation by the first Caliph. The very words uttered by this truth-loving Caliph: “Abu Bakr and Umar had themselves opened floodgates of taunts for them by snatching Fadak” show that Fadak had a significant value and importance.

As a matter of fact, had the value of Fadak been so insignificant as claimed, then neither the people of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s time would have told him: “You have taunted Abu Bakr and Umar” nor the Caliph would have replied to them as above. The nature of this dialogue shows that the significance was such that both the Caliph and the people had paid attention to it. Doubtlessly, the above events show that even after the passing of a hundred years, the affair called for attention. That is why a Caliph of the time had to attend to it and the people also were alerted by it. It would never have been so, had Fadak been an insignificant thing.

If Fadak was not a province and if it was merely a small garden having some trees, then according to nature, such a little garden would not have lasted from the time of Abu Bakr till the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, especially when no one knows since when had that garden existed! The opponents of the Leader of the women of both the worlds (Fatima) should think that if a garden cannot last for such a long time what was that thing which Caliph Umar, the second, returned to the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)?

This only shows that Fadak was not merely a garden but was a village, having several fruit trees and also some springs which was returned by the wise Caliph to Muhammad’s Progeny. It is also known that after the time of this just Caliph, some Caliphs used to confiscate it and some used to restore. So the existence of this thing for such a long time and its confiscation and restoring also proves that it was not a mere little garden but that it was a province.

Fadak, which was given by Mutawakkil the Nasibi to his barber, was surely a province of Fadak. Reason does not allow us to believe that a Caliph had gifted a garden having only an income of less than a rupee per annum to his barber of choice. Gifting such a trifling thing to a man of Caliph’s trust is incomprehensible, especially when that area was at a distance of about three months’ journey from the capital, Baghdad. It would have been like not giving at all.

Knowledgeable people know that the Caliphs of Bani Abbas were among the richest kings of the time, who gave away millions to their well-wishers. So it is unbelievable that such a Caliph could have confiscated such a cheap garden at a far off place from the capital from Ahlul Bayt to gift it to his man of choice. Surely that place was valuable and so the Caliph gifted it to his man of trust.

It may be noted that the misunderstanding of those who believe that the garden claimed by Lady Fatima was a garden of only a few trees seems to be based on an imagination that Fadak was a group of those trees which were planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself in the province of Fadak and their number was not more than ten or eleven. Allamah Ibn Mitham Bahraini writes on Pg. 20 of Sharh Nahjul Balagha that in Fadak, there were eleven trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself and those trees were in the possession of the progeny of Fatima (s.a.) and the Ahlul Bayt were giving the fruits of these trees to Hajj pilgrims, who used to recite benedictions on the Prophet (Durood) on receiving these fruits. But then some gentlemen ordered to cut off those trees and so it was done. This writer says:

“May my soul be sacrificed for the trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) and may thousands of trees of Paradise be sacrificed for those trees.”

In short, it should be understood that Fadak was a fertile land and never a bunch of fruit trees, as some foolish people have believed. Ibn Abbas writes in his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute the produce of Fadak among Bani Abdul Muttalib. This proves that Fadak was yielding much produce. Similarly, narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also show that Fadak was an area near Khaybar and reliable commentators have written that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute Fadak grain between his near and dear relatives. How astonishing on the part of those unwise people who have understood that Fadak was a bunch of merely eleven trees which were planted in Fadak!

Note

1. Indian currency

Causes Of Aale Muhammad’s Dishonor

Causes of Aale Muhammad’s1 Dishonor

It should be clear that here the writer has no argument whether Fatima (s.a.) was on the right in the matter of Fadak or not. Here, we only need to see the effects of deprivation of Fadak from Muhammad’s Progeny. It is well known that Muhammad’s Progeny used to receive a considerable income from the orchards of Fadak and they used to spend a major portion of it on the poor and destitute. Thus, its deprivation caused a decrease in their worldly status. There is no doubt that just as the loss of rulership caused public dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, In the same way, the loss of Fadak caused a private loss.

Doubtlessly, the deprivation of Fadak is seen as the second rung of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny. With these two a third fear struck Muhammad’s Progeny and that was the rise of Bani Umayyah who were suppressed by the Holy Prophet (S) but had now became the rulers of Syria (Shaam). Their rapid rise to power in Shaam had no parallel in case of any other tribe. Those who are conversant with history know that the progress of Bani Umayyah was at the cost of Muhammad’s Progeny. The Bani Umayyah continued to take revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny as is obvious from the statement of Muawiyah’s son. Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah says:

“Where are the slain ones of Badr? They should see how we have taken revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny.”

It was after the carnage of Karbala’ when Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was presented in the court of Damascus and the singer sang Yazeed’s poetic composition. The poem also had the following couplet:

The Bani Hashim had played a game with the people. Neither glad tidings arrived, nor any revelation descended.

This shows that the frustrated Bani Umayyah considered the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be a play and they were actually ignorant of its truth. Anyway, there is no doubt that the rise of Bani Umayyah put an end to the worldly status of Muhammad’s Progeny. The material wealth of Bani Umayyah was such that when Abu Bakr was made the Caliph, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to Ali (a.s.) and said in a concerned way: “O Ali! The matter of Caliphate has been decided but you made no effort to obtain it? If you desire I can fill the desert of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy that Caliphate in a moment.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “Abu Sufyan! You were creating mischief in the days of ignorance (Jahiliya) too. And now that you have proffered Islam, your machinations are still intact.”

Ali (a.s.) replied to Abu Sufyan in that manner because Abu Sufyan was from the Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had even cursed this tribe. In such circumstances, Ali (a.s.) could not tolerate any kind of pact with Abu Sufyan. Ali (a.s.) followed the Prophet in every matter. His aloofness from Abu Sufyan was justified. If he had shown any inclination to Abu Sufyan’s offer, it would have been absolutely against the desire of the Prophet. It is well known that the Bani Umayyah were dead opposed to both, the religion of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had put this tribe in its place in ten years. Now this tribe had no satanic power remaining.

Thus, if Ali (a.s.) sought the co-operation of Abu Sufyan, he would have been the cause of Bani Umayyah’s revival just as the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) were. That is, Abu Sufyan was made partner in rulership in order to save the seat of Caliphate. The result was that Bani Umayyah regained its lost strength and in no time, it became the supreme ruler of the Islamic lands.

It is indeed astonishing that this act, committed by the first Caliphate was clearly opposed to the aims of the Messenger of Allah (S). The consequences of this single mistake are not hidden from the people who know. And what to say of the mischiefs created in Islam itself? Words cannot describe the havoc wreaked upon the family of the Prophet. Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had agreed to Abu Sufyan’s offer, the blame of all the disasters and the carnage of Karbala’ would have come on Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after getting this reply from Ali (a.s.), Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said: “At last you have achieved your aim, but we have no share in your success. I shall destroy your Caliphate in no time.” The two were much worried at this threat of Abu Sufyan. They knew that to destroy the Caliphate was not difficult for Abu Sufyan. With all helplessness, they told Abu Sufyan: “You too become a partner in our success, what is the need to destroy the Caliphate?”

Thus, it was agreed that Abu Sufyan would send his son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan to rule Syria. This son ruled Syria for four years and after his death, his younger brother inherited the rulership of Syria during Umar’s Caliphate. His late brother was not at all learned and thus his death was a boon to Bani Umayyah. As soon as Muawiyah took over the reins of government, the wealth of Bani Umayyah began to increase rapidly till finally, Muawiyah became the ruler of all the Islamic lands.

We should know that as the Bani Umayyah gained wealth and strength, the Bani Hashim became further away from power and rulership. Due to the above reasons, the Bani Hashim were out of the common populace and their apparent status was no more. Then even though they got rulership during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) they could not regain their lost position. Even after gaining the Caliphate, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not dethrone Muawiyah. Ali (a.s.) continued to confront the Bani Umayyah but even after all the turmoil, Muawiyah continued to remain in power. The limited and temporary status of Bani Hashim ended with the martyrdom of Ali (a.s.).

Though Imam Hasan (a.s.) was the successor of his respected father, within a period of six months he had to forgo rulership due to Muawiyah’s onslaught. Here we do not debate whether Ali (a.s.) was on the right or Muawiyah or whether the forced abdication of Imam Hasan (a.s.) by Muawiyah was justified or not. Our aim in presenting these historical facts is only to show the terrible calamities that befell Muhammad’s Progeny after the passing away of the Prophet, due to which their status fell in the view of public, day by day and this finally culminated into the incident known as the tragedy of Karbala’.

Anyway, after the abdication of Caliphate, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah. This was by no means a great insult of Muhammad’s Progeny. At that time, all the Islamic lands were under the domination of Bani Umayyah. Muawiyah was not the chief of Bani Umayyah and ruler of Shaam alone. Being the Caliph of the time, his power extended to even Mecca and Medina.

However, there lived in Medina, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Bani Hashim. But none of the Bani Hashim had any kind of rulership. The command and the monetary wealth of the government were all in the hands of Muawiyah. In spite of this, Muawiyah was not satisfied. At last, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) pleased the heart of the Caliph.2 But that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was yet alive was not a lesser worry to Muawiyah.

Muawiyah knew that Imam Husayn (a.s.) had inherited the valor of his father. So to remain careless of him would be against reason. Therefore, he used to tell his son: “Do not consider your throne safe. Imam Husayn (a.s.) is still alive.” Even though Muawiyah was anticipating danger from Imam Husayn (a.s.), the condition of Bani Hashim had deteriorated and day by day their economic conditions worsened. Gradually, the people did not consider the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be worthy of being followed.

An example of this loss of position is that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) came out to confront Bani Umayyah, he had no more than 150 people with him. Seeing this condition of the Muslims, he returned to the city. It is obvious that as they had lost rulership, they could not bank on the support of the general Arab populace.

Only the Bani Hashim, who could never forsake them, offered their support. It was so, because they had true devotion to the Messenger of Allah (S) due to which they considered honoring Bani Hashim an obligatory duty upon themselves. Other people professed support to Bani Umayyah. And why should they not? When all the dominions of Islam were transferred into the hands of Bani Umayyah?

Another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny is that at the time of his passing away, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had made a bequest that he should be buried next to the Holy Prophet (S) and this bequest was natural. Also, Imam Hasan (a.s.) considered himself worthy of it. But its result was that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved with the bier of Imam Hasan (a.s.) towards the burial place of the Prophet, the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny showered arrows on the bier.

We don’t know how many arrows were shot, but we can estimate from the fact that 60 arrows hit the bier of the Infallible Imam. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was enraged at this lack of support of the Muslims and unsheathed his sword. However, the matter did not reach the stage of bloodshed. Keeping in mind the kind of nature of Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) forsook confrontation and took the last remains of his brother to Jannatul Baqi for burial.

This incident shows that till that time there was a considerable decrease in the status of Bani Hashim. They were not even capable to fulfill the last wish of their departed leader in opposition to the people’s desire. We consider the bequest of Imam Hasan (a.s.) justified because it fulfilled all the conditions of natural emotions. In the view of the just people who was more deserving to be buried next to his grandfather than Imam Hasan (a.s.)? But what is the reply of injustice of the people? O Allah! O Allah!

Now we present another example of the dishonor of Bani Hashim, which was also caused by Bani Umayyah. It is that in Damascus, curses were recited on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) after every prayer, especially after the Friday Prayer. And as the writer has mentioned above, the initiator of this was Muawiyah. This custom continued for a long time till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph, discontinued it.

The discussion of cursing will follow soon. In any case, if Shias had not adopted this type of cursing, they would have gained the sympathy of many of their opponents and this would have been a very effective instrument for the expansion of Shiaism. After this, we shall mention another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, which would show how the honor of Muhammad’s Progeny had decreased after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S).

The incident is that Imam Hasan (a.s.) wrote a letter to Ziyad regarding some matter. Ziyad being of illegitimate birth was called by the name of Ibn Sumayyah. Imam Hasan (a.s.) also addressed Ziyad by this name and he had no intention to insult Ziyad, but this enemy of Allah replied to the letter of Imam Hasan (a.s.) addressing him as Hasan Ibn Fatima (s.a.). Imam Hasan (a.s.) was an absolutely good-natured person and he replied with utmost forbearance that:

“Everyone knows my father well, I am the son of Ali.” This shows to what extent Muhammad’s Progeny had fallen in the estimation of public that an illegitimate born disregarded the honor of even a leader like Imam Hasan (a.s.). Ziyad, the one whose hereafter was destroyed, insulted the daughter of the Prophet and the people of that time did not object? What type of Muslims are these who glorify the age of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and the tears of the Muslims of this time are unabated.

Regarding the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to know something about people like Ziyad. He is the same whose son, Ibn Ziyad was Yazeed’s commander and who had come from Basra to fight Imam Husayn (a.s.). Ziyad himself was actually of doubtful paternity, but he was such a resourceful person that Muawiyah felt the need to make him his brother. Indeed, he was most useful for the Caliph. He created brotherhood by announcing publicly that Ziyad is the biological son of Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb. But to confirm this, a witness was not found, except a person who testified that:

“One day Abu Sufyan had come to my tavern which is at a distance of 20 km from Mecca. At that time, Abu Sufyan was on a journey. Reaching my tavern he asked for wine. When I served, he consumed it and became intoxicated. After being intoxicated he asked for a woman. There was no woman except for a slave girl of mine and I presented it to her. On hearing this, Abu Sufyan said that she was not nice as her belly was large. But later when he became more intoxicated he asked me to get her. The woman was brought to him.”

Whatever the tavern-keeper said after this does not deserve to be mentioned here.

Those who desire to know the details may refer to Abul Fida’s Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. Anyway, on hearing this testimony, the Caliph was enraged and said to the tavern keeper: “You have come here to testify or to heap abuses?” In any case, this testimony of the tavern-keeper proved the brotherhood of Ziyad to the Caliph. And from that time, Ziyad became a man with family. Congratulations to Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan for such a brother and to all the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny.

Notes

1. Progeny of Muhammad

2. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

Atrocities on Muhammad’s Progeny and how they Bore Them Patiently

O people of justice! Just see what atrocities Muhammad’s Progeny had to bear after the passing away of Muhammad Mustafa (S). Indeed, the progeny of no other person has borne such problems as the progeny of the Arabian Prophet, and that too at the hands of his own nation. This is not a new opinion presented by this writer, even the companions of the Prophet, who followed Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to see those injustices and say: “We have not seen anyone inflicted with such atrocities as the household of the Prophet after his passing away.” Allaahu Akbar (God is the Greatest)!1

Apparently, there is no limit to the atrocities and there were different types of atrocities, but Muhammad’s Progeny continued to bear them. Indeed, the patience of Ayyub (a.s.) is nothing in comparison to the patience of Muhammad’s Progeny. The patience of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in face of the handiwork of Amir Muawiyah, the patience of the elder brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.) even after he was poisoned, shows the caliber of their patience. In the same way, steadfastness of Imam Husayn, his patience and obedience is seen defeating human aspiration!

It is worth noting that the age of Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was four years at the time of the tragedy of Karbala’. He accompanied the prisoners to Damascus and upon the orders of Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the prisoners were exhibited in the bazaars of Damascus, when a Syrian woman following the custom of that country tried to offer him a loaf of bread, which she had made the expiation of her son. It was an ancient custom according to which people used to offer bread loaves to the prisoners after expiating them over their children.

Even though Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was only four and he was also hungry, yet he refused to accept the bread and said: “We are Muhammad’s Progeny and alms (Sadaqah) is prohibited for us.” O those who value infallibility of Muhammad’s Progeny, such a differentiation of the prohibited or lawful is only possible by one who is born an infallible. This incident clearly shows the difference between true and false Imams. Reason says that only such an Imam can be the true successor of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible.

O Allah, bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Reason can never accept that the successor of an infallible could be a fallible person. Those who have considered it possible have, without any argument, been irrational.

Note

1. Refer to Murujuz Zahab of Masudi, Pg. 166, and Tarikh Kamil of Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5

A Glance at the Religious Leadership of Muhammad’s Progeny

Respected readers! Please note that the humble writer has mentioned the points that show the worldly loss of honor of Muhammad’s Progeny. Now we shall mention the religious aspects that caused decrease in the respect of Muhammad’s Progeny, as a result of which, a major part of the Islamic world remained deprived of their leadership.

There is doubt that worldly dishonor and loss of religious positions did not in any way cause personal harm to Muhammad’s Progeny. But surprising are those who were the causes of these misdemeanors towards Muhammad’s Progeny and still continue to be so. Today, neither the Bani Umayyah remains not the Bani Abbas and there remains no hope of any benefit from their past kingdoms, but thousands are still devoted to them, just like when they were in power. Even today, such people are inimical to the name of Muhammad’s Progeny as their enemies were in the bygone days. Even though Husayn (a.s.) is not present, there is no dearth of Shimrs and Ibn Ziyads.

The condition is such that an Ahlul Sunnat scholar wrote an article in an Urdu newspaper based on some virtues and merits of Ali (a.s.). This article caused a lot of consternation among the enemies of Ali (a.s.) and people wrote letters criticizing this article and wanted to know since when the writer has adopted Shia religion. They asked him what was the need to pen such an article? The poor scholar had no reply and he remained quiet. Anyway, the next issue of that paper carried an extensive article in praise of Muawiyah. It is a pity that it is no more the reign of Muawiyah, otherwise, the writer would have received a handsome reward from the wealth of Shaam (Syria).

This is the extent of malice to Muhammad’s Progeny today; so you can imagine what it would have been when Bani Umayyah were in power! Now I request the just people to study the factors that caused decrease in the religious position of Muhammad’s Progeny. They are as follows:

Compilation of Quran and Its Harmful Effect On The Religious Leadership Of Bani Hashim

It seems that the Quran was compiled and collected during the time of Holy Prophet (S) and its compiler was Ali (a.s.) as apparent from the traditions of Bukhari, Suyuti and Damiri. He had collected the Quran in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) and according to the report of Bukhari, he used to announce that he had the Quran systematically arranged by the Prophet. However, the matter of Caliphate was decided; as a result of which the Bani Hashim were distanced from rulership.

Thus, after sometime, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) was busy in collecting the Quran. Learning of this, Abu Bakr appointed Zaid bin Thabit and Ubayy Ibn Kaab to collect the Quran. These people did as ordered by the Caliph.

There is no doubt that Ali (a.s.) had collected the Quran during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet (S) had himself given the name and the sequence of the verses of each chapter of the Quran. But what happened to the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.)? There was no sign of it. But it is learnt that a copy of the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.) existed upto the time of Saffah, the Abbasid ruler.1 When it survived till the reign of Saffah, there can be no doubt about its existence during the time of Abu Bakr, when its collector, Ali (a.s.) was himself present.

It is surprising that Abu Bakr did not ask for the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.). What was the use of appointing Zaid bin Thabit? Books of both the sects show that Abu Bakr did not involve Ali (a.s.) in this matter at all. He neither asked Ali (a.s.) to collect the Quran, nor did he take any advice from him. This disregard by the Caliph doubtlessly created an aspect of decrease in Ali’s status in the people’s view. People are aware that from the aspect of tradition of the two heavy things, Ali (a.s.) could not be considered separate from Quran. Even today, those who believe in the veracity of the Holy Prophet (S) consider Ali (a.s.) to be with the Quran on the basis of the prophetic tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

Thus, the action of the Caliph to have the Quran collected by people other than Ali (a.s.) was a one-sided matter and any matter concerning the Quran had no one more deserving than Ali (a.s.). In addition to be the subject of the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.”

He was also the gate of knowledge according to the Holy Prophet (S). But when the Quran collected by him was not give currency, naturally people began to consider him less important from that aspect of religious leadership. Indeed, if the Quran collected by him had become popular, he would have earned great credit and respect among the populace. Apparently, the matter of gathering the Quran seems to be a secret affair. But it was one of the strongest causes for the dishonor of Bani Hashim.

In view of this writer, this incident was the second after the incident of “we have the Book of Allah”, which brought worldly loss of status for Bani Hashim. We all know that the matter of collecting the Quran affected the people of all ages and even today its effects are obvious. For example, as in past, in this age also, programs of Quranic recitation are held. The memorizers recite the Quranic verses and the scholars explain the meaning, quoting the relevant traditions of the Holy Prophet (S). But not once do they refer to the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

But if this Quran had been the one collected by Ali (a.s.), they would have been compelled to recite the above tradition also. In that case, the remembrance of the ‘Silent Quran’ would have been accompanied with the remembrance of ‘Speaking Quran’. The ‘Speaking Quran’ denotes His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). He has referred to himself as the ‘Speaking Quran’.2 Anyway, if this omission from Quran recitations programs does not show disrespect of Bani Hashim, what else does? Only those considered worthy of remembrance are remembered. Who remembers those unworthy of remembrance?

It would not be out of place to mention a belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Allah is so angry with Shias that they are not able to memorize the Quran! Apparently, this implies that Shias never make efforts to memorize the Quran. I have seen two or three memorizers of Quran. One of them being the son of Mir Mahdi Husayn Sahab, who recites the Quran every year in the holy month of Ramadhan at Lodi Qada. The witness of this is Hafiz Abdul Majeed Khan Sahab who presently resides at Natwal.

There are even some Shia memorizers of Quran (Hafiz) in the principalities of Rampur, Amroha and Lucknow. Maulana Hafiz Kifayat Husayn Sahab is ever ready to travel anywhere and recite the Quran for anyone who so desires. And there were numerous people from Shias who learnt the Quran by heart.

For example, Asim, Amash, Ibn Abbas, Abul Aswad etc. Even Ahlul Sunnat consider them excellent Huffaz (pl. of Hafiz = one who knows the Quran by heart). In short, we can say that it is a stupid notion that Shias cannot memorize the Quran. Leave alone Shias, Christians, Jews and atheists could become Hafiz if they strive for it. Indeed, bigotry is something that makes one blind to truth, and it is the greatest impediment to research.

Notes

1. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 260

2. Refer Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 72