A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH Volume 1

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH0%

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH Author:
Translator: Dr. Hassan Najafi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Imam Ali
ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH

Author: Ali Labbaf
Translator: Dr. Hassan Najafi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category:

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8
visits: 5429
Download: 1126


Comments:

Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 38 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 5429 / Download: 1126
Size Size Size
A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH Volume 1

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8
English

Discourse Seven: Denial of Differences between Ali and Caliphs

Introduction

It seems necessary to take into consideration events that took place in early days of Islam with their details and fundamentals of Shia belief and teachings of Shia school for analysis. Otherwise events will be interpreted according to desire by overlooking some occurrences or avoiding a part of them, deleting the beginning and end or ignoring principles of Shia belief, or by linking separate events to each other and a reason will be found for it.

This is the method and way of deviation not only in historical events but also in some researches of belief.

Such a trend in the event means to set aside fundamentals of belief and to take up similarities of history. By this way one’s view or opinion in Islamic history, traditions and on Islamic texts can be inserted or applied. Even opinion of other researchers can be shown in a wrong light.

They separate an event from the whole history. This is one of the wrong thoughts being propagated for creating Islamic unity. They make Shia belief remote from event. This they do to prove that there did not exist any difference between Ali and Caliphs.

No tyranny took place anywhere, neither a right was snatched away from Ali.

It seems that the great obstacles in way of inserting this matter are events in history which started from Saqifah Bani Saada.

In any case every reader has a little study and some information about history of early Islam. So he knows the events immediately after passing away of Prophet. No matter this information could be on basis of Sunni sources. He cannot believe so simply that there was no difference between Ali and Caliphs. It could be possible that narration might have taken a different trend. The word difference might have been used in a sense of friendly not inimical difference, or the enmity of one side might be denied which followed the Saqifah and resulted in martyrdom of Mohsin and then martyrdom of Zahra herself. In the end relations might be shown as friendly.

Such they have written:

“Difference in a society - like that of Islamic - after passing away of Prophet could be of two dimensions. One: a brotherly difference; the other: an inimical one…

My conclusion is whatever happened in the early days of Islam among Muslims particularly after passing away of Prophet between Ali and companions of Prophet was certainly a friendly difference.”![377]

Those who infuse such doubts have forgotten that one of parties to these differences, named friendly, was an infallible Imam. God vested him with mandate to repudiate differences in the Islamic Ummah.

One of the reasons of Shia for continuity of Imamate after prophethood is existence of differences among Muslims and necessity of their removal by an infallible source. God appointed the Prophet to remove differences between Muslims. In the same way, God appointed infallible Imam as only source to repudiate differences. God bestowed on him a faculty that safeguards him from mistakes or ignorance. He is the only source after the Prophet. Differences are nullified by referring to him. His word and practice are final authorities and distinguisher of right from wrong and virtue from vice. To deny his ruling is not acceptable and an absolute wrong.

Therefore to put in a word in the trend or attitude the Imam adopts is an open treachery from command of God. Treachery against God’s orders and standing face to face in open disobedience to authority of God, that is the infallible Imam, is in itself a source of difference. There is no justification, whatsoever, even though the difference be a friendly one.

Even if we ignore this mistake of belief there still remains an important point to be heeded. Supposing the difference was a friendly one, the first question that arises is what was the reason for this difference?

History gives us answer to this question: The difference starts from Saqifah where the God-given right of Ali, which the Prophet had already made known to masses in Ghadeer, was usurped. Then atrocities were openly unleashed on him (Ali) and his wife Zahra. Ali himself had said: “…in these circumstances I am not alone on whom tyranny is being done.”[372]

Here one should ask whether tyranny and atrocity could have a brotherly or friendly nature and characteristic? Can we say such a difference was a family issue or a brotherly one? Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet has had been complaining too often. Were her complaints brotherly? Did she complain of friendly atrocities? Can a tyranny be friendly? If it was friendly, why Zahra kept complaining to God about the tyranny?[373]

Another point is:

If Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) after these oppressions, tyrannies and usurpation of Caliphate from the aspect of protecting Islam and responsibilities the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had given him from Allah, does this reflect that Ali was happy or indifferent in his heart about tyrannies and atrocities done to him and his wife, Zahra? Does this mean that Ali treated the tyrannies committed to him as brotherly and friendly? Ali was under a mandate from the Prophet to tolerate tyranny for the sake of preserving Islam[374] although his Caliphate was taken away from him. He refrained from taking back his right by an armed uprising because his motive and aim was greater and nobler. He had to remain honest to Prophet’s recommendations to him.

Can Ali be sympathetic and have normal behavior and ordinary conduct against a tyrant, usurper and murderer? He himself has referred to this.[375]

If he remained silent to avoid war and bloodshed to protect Quran from being destroyed totally and likewise the family of the Prophet; does this mean that it was a brotherly difference?

On many occasions Ali interfered in the dealings of Caliphs. This shows his sympathy towards Islamic Ummah and its interests. It was his intention to protect religion from being destroyed. Such is the conduct of men of God against biggest enemies of faith, or God or themselves. Men of God have always behaved as such. They show endurance and tolerance in most pressing conditions. They have always invited to good and a straight way. However this cannot mean that they were looking eye to eye with the tyrants. It does not reflect that they did not have differences or that they were friendly with them.

This particularity also displays their (the enemies’) conduct towards the Imam. It has been said:

“Our elders and leaders, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not enemies with each other though they had differences with each other - very serious differences. But they were not one another’s enemy.”![376]

The calamity that happened after Saqifah; what was it, if not sign of enmity?

Certainly, they will say:

“Differences between companions of Prophet were internal but friendly.”![377]

It is pitiable that designers of this outlook have forgotten important principles of belief and authenticity of word and deed of Infallible. Instead of going after origin of this difference, which is to turn away from God’s authority, they should have paid attention to the fact that it is all to give shape to their design. It is an effort to justify differences.

Shia logic is that an infallible Imam is a pivot of truth. Whoever is not in its circle or in its rotation has strayed and lost in darkness of vice and wrong.

The Quran says:

“So what is after the truth but going astray?”[378]

Well, has not the Prophet said this about Ali?

“Ali is with truth and the truth with Ali.”[379]

Still can we consider the difference a justified one? Can we classify it?

The base on which the difference rests is wrong. Disobedience and going treacherous in orders and instructions give rise to differences. Whether differences are friendly or do not make any difference.

To be at a difference with an infallible Imam is itself going astray. It is by root wrong and a sin though it may be named friendly.

The base of differences is tyranny, atrocity and usurping God-bestowed right of Ahle Bayt of Prophet. To deny their authority to lift the differences is to deny God’s decree. These differences are on the ruins of religion. Calling them friendly cannot change the reality.

Whatever the trend and attitude, contact and conduct of a party to differences was towards safeguarding God’s religion, Quran and family of the Prophet. However vast the differences it cannot be a proof for existence of friendship or facing of the Imam in friendly terms against those who had usurped his right of Caliphate. It cannot be a proof for non-existence of implacabilities and rancor on the other side of dispute.

In fact, if they had not turned their backs upon the pivot of truth no difference would have come into being.

Because Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) had divine mandate for his responsibility and a mission from God, he adopted a special attitude in his relations with Caliphs. He avoided armed uprising. On no occasion did he give up his right to demand what was taken away from him. He kept his demand alive.[380]

Caliphs also had to cover their scandal and ignorance of Islam and administration; so occasionally they were in consultation with Ali.[381] In itself, it is a proof of their ignorance and not knowing the job. They had occupied the Prophet’s position they did not deserve.

There was no sign to show either side was on good terms with the other. Although there was no open dispute or a row between them, yet the terms took most awkward trend.

In the early days of usurpation of Caliphate there occurred a harsh entanglement and ended by attack on Zahra’s house.

In spite of all this we still see them claiming:

“As soon as Ali paid allegiance to Caliph he became intimate with him.”![382]

“Ali paid allegiance to Caliphs. Since he had a high spirit, he did not take anybody’s rancor to heart. But he behaved sincerely with them.”![383]

“Although Ali was aware that he was more suitable and deserving to be Caliph, yet he behaved gently with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. He extended help to them without any hesitation.”![384]

“There is no crime more serious than that even though there was peace between the Imam and Caliphs people fell into differences among themselves.”![385]

Such comments and statements, injecting ideas that the Imam and Caliphs were on good terms entail wrong consequences. For instance:

The rule of Abu Bakr and Umar has come out of the circle of usurpation. The logic of people of Saqifah has taken legitimacy.

More pitiable is that they frame various arguments to prove that Ali had confirmed legitimacy of their government while it was his right. How can this be possible?

Furthermore, they say:

“Acceptance and acknowledgement of Ali shows from his own (Ali’s) outlook that their government was a legal and legitimate one.”![386]

Regretfully, such types of statements and comments go a long way to justify Caliphs’ government. The deviations, perversions, crimes and innovations in religion are thus either forgotten or hidden in an umbrella of such false claims. Their atrocities and enmity with infallible Ahle Bayt of Prophet are ignored. It is claimed:

“Seeking distance from enemies of Ahle Bayt of Prophet (i.e. Baraat) is applied on only three Caliphs.”![387]

“Rude historical portrayal of the three Caliphs must be looked at anew.”![388]

Ali did not campaign. It is true. But it does not mean he was a friend of them. He had a greater aim. He avoided people going back to their recent position; that is idol worship, to the days prior to Islam.[389] He wanted to protect the land of revelation from foreign enemies. He had to save the life of the Prophet’s family from hypocrites.

This attitude is attributed to silence and silence construed as acceptance and co-operation with Caliphs.[390] Likewise, they try to establish friendship between Imam and Caliphs. The long rankling enmity of Caliphs with Ahle Bayt (a.s.) is over-ridden. Consequently it will entail legitimacy to Caliphs’ government.

Such a movement goes beyond necessary limits for protecting political unity and laying a lid over dispute and differences.

Criticism and Analysis

“Ali did not give up his right because he kept complaining and demanding his right from those who had usurped it. He frankly and openly made his right known to all. He did not see this as a hindrance or setback to Islamic unity. There are several speeches in Nahjul Balagha to establish this fact.[391] In spite of all this, he did not withdraw himself from the rows of Muslims before the strangers. Ali kept the same attitude in practice too. Besides, personally he did not accept any post in government of any Caliph. He did not accept any. He neither accepted any military post nor a civil one neither in any district nor province or responsibility of pilgrims. When he did not accept any post, it does not denote his acceptance of their government or his overlooking of their tyranny in depriving him of his right.[392] He himself did not accept any office but he did not prevent his family members, friends or companions to accept any post. To accept a job in administration could be co-operation with them. But it was by no means sanction to their right to rule.”[393]

Therefore it is better to expound here the historical bitter and painful truth.[394] We should not distort facts or show partiality. Else the coming generation will take for granted these things as a matter of belief not on the basis of happenings.

“We should not consider Caliphs restricted from Caliphate particularly when the Imam had been on good terms with them. He was co-operative and even intimate to them. Further the Imam was their guide openly and secretly.”![395]

Such a reflection of events; does it not make stronger pillars of rulership which had come into being through intrigue and treachery at Saqifah? And this very Saqifah is an open disobedience to Quranic text and God’s ruling. The political game of Saqifah was a deviation among Muslims and formation of a government in contradiction to the government of God. A false justification of peace and friendship between the Imam and Caliphs cannot give legitimacy to their tyrannical treachery.

The false peace and friendship on the part of the Imam who was a true one and God’s Caliph over the earth in favor of Abu Bakr’s false Caliphate will give it legitimacy.

What History says?

“If this statement be true that in the lifetime of Prophet of God two different political movements existed among Muhajireen. There were those who were trying to obtain Caliphate. It should be confessed that from those days the Imam and Shaykhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) should have not been on good terms. In the information about conduct, nothing exists to prove this. Likewise, there does not exist anything to show friendship between them. The enmity of Ayesha with Ali existed from the very days of the Prophet. She herself has admitted this fact. This shows the differences between the progeny of Abu Bakr and the progeny of Ali. When Fatima died, all the Prophet’s widows took part in mourning ceremonies. But Ayesha did not participate under excuse of sickness. Anyway, something was narrated to Ali. It was that Ayesha had expressed her happiness. Immediately after Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, she started proving the legitimacy of Caliphate and created troubles for Ali and his relatives.

Zahra’s house was attacked. She was angry with the two (Abu Bakr and Umar). Zahra in her will banned them from attending her burial. This deepened the differences. Since then Imam isolated himself in his house and got busy with affairs of his private life. The government had expected him in view of his paying allegiance,[396] to not claim his right. They even expected him to take up his sword in way of strengthening their rulership and to fight with their adversaries. But Imam rejected this request from them. So it was quite normal that they belittle him against such an attitude of his.[397] This policy pushed the Imam into further isolation.”[398]

“Relations of the Imam with Abu Bakr were too cold as though there were no good memories at all. But in his relations with Umar, there are many memories most of them are Imam’s assistance to him in judicial matters. Besides, his help in answering the questions is another factor.[399] Umar used to apparently behave gently with the Imam. He tried not to be obviously harsh towards him. Likewise, Imam too maintained same reciprocation. But Uthman was not like this. He did not tolerate Imam’s opinions…”[400]

“To oppose the government was very difficult for the Imam. In the early days the Imam tried to avoid facing the government by isolating himself. Saad bin Ubadah was rather a good experience.[401] He did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. All of a sudden news reached that Jinns had murdered him.”[402]

“Of course whenever an opportunity arose he did claim his right. In the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, he did not pay allegiance for a few months. It was still initial stage of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate that Ali used to take his wife and sons and go from door to door of the Ansaar to remind them about Prophet’s words and demand the right snatched from him by intrigue.

His insistence was to the extent that he was accused of greed for Caliphate.”[403]

“Regarding evaluation of Imam about the three Caliphs this much can be said: In each of the periods, Imam was not free to express his evaluation about the two Caliphs. But during the period of Uthman, whenever an occasion or an opportunity arose he expressed his conclusions and opinions.

The reason was that his soldiers in Kufa were such that except for a few all had accepted two Caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar). So the Imam could not speak his mind in their presence or in their gathering. Once he availed an opportunity, he started exposing his agonies caused by them. Then all of a sudden he turned the trend of his speech and did not continue the subject.”[404]

“Inspite of his alertness and care he did not accept the condition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the days of Shura committee. The condition was that the Imam should follow Abu Bakr and Umar’s practice in his Caliphate. Imam refused and said he will act according to his own Ijtihaad.

This refusal clearly shows Imam’s attitude to the two Caliphs. This shows that their conduct in most cases was against Prophet’s conduct and God’s pleasure.

Imam’s speeches and proceeds during his government reflect his displeasure about dealings of the past two Caliphs.”[405]

The Result

“Each side of the Imam’s isolated life in that society is an indicator that he himself and Caliphs were aware of this fact that they cannot behave or deal with each other as to show his approval to them and to their Caliphate.”[406]

Likewise:

“There is not a least doubt that the Imam had no part in the run of affairs during three Caliphates. He only gave his opinion where judicial cases were concerned. And still more limited he gave opinion only in political concern. Therefore he had no serious or sincere presence in political scene of past three Caliphs. In short, Ali had no membership or chair in the framework of government of three Caliphs. So it can be said that he had leadership of the opposition party from a distance.”[407]

Reminder

The point in explanation of Ali’s activities of belief and knowledge should be paid attention to is:

The real identity of Imam’s activities lies in his endeavors towards wiping out dust of deviation and wreckage from original face of Islamic teachings and propaganda of Islamic fundamentals. There is no doubt how he tried to renew the real entity of faith. This becomes clearer when anti-Islamic movements of Caliphs are sketched in detail.

If we magnify the limited activities of Imam, it will result rather in giving a misleading picture to the people. Whatever he did must be kept against whatever Caliphs did. Then only can be understood Imam’s services to Islam. Caliphs damaged Islam and its teachings. Imam Ali (a.s.) mended the damage. The scope is wider. It embraces military, economical, cultural, social and political spheres. The work of Ali cannot be conceived without a comparison with the work of previous three Caliphs. We add here what is said:

“Since the revolution which Islam brought was a revolution of faith and culture, it did not depend on aimed campaign. After demise of Prophet, Imam (Ali) occupied himself in this said activity, which was of utmost importance and priority. This he did to provide a thorough and consummate answer to objections and attacks (in sphere of belief) of the scholars of newly conquered countries. Further, to be able to cater to the queries of lawyers and jurisprudents. Far beyond this, to provide a stock of teachings that could be embraced without hesitation in countries that had accepted Islam as their faith. So in the fronts of law, belief, principles, Islamic cultural issues, jurisprudence and other issues he was well equipped with the needed sources.”[408]

“After Prophet’s passing away Imam Ali (a.s.) throughout the span of three Caliphs because of his God-bestowed sagacity, intelligence and ministry he had been a pivot of Islamic revolution. He engaged himself in giving guidance to people and Caliphs at the same time.”[409]

He [Imam Ali (a.s.)] fulfilled the task of highest degree of honest consultant of Caliphs in all grounds, political and military. He had physical presence in the arena. As far as he could he held the people and Caliphs from going astray, becoming disobedient to divine rulings, deviating from standards established by Prophet, going corrupted, treacherous and sinful by advising and enjoining good and restraining from evil.”[410]

A Note

We have specified all aspects and dimensions of this discussion regarding extremist unity-seekers in second volume of this book. We suffice with this much in this volume. We invite your attention to the analysis of Ustad Ja’far Murtuza Amili in his book Analysis of the political life of Imam Hasan Mujtaba (2nd Edition, Pgs. 88-125):

He commences his analysis under the heading: ‘A Surprising Role’ and writes:

“Events took place which are known and recorded in history. Ali was sidelined from Islamic Caliphate and isolated in his house.

Politics of the system that ruled and those who came to power treated Imamate with two aims.

1 - They started injecting spirit of disappointment and hopelessness into adversaries; even to Ali himself. They regarded Ali as most powerful and stronger of all besides seeing him as a strong rival and competitor.

They started erasing out all signs of aspirations and intentions to reach to Caliphate….”

Ustad Ja’far Murtuza in continuation of his analysis derives the following results through documents and proofs, which he produces in this respect:

“Government authorities were trying that Ali might forget the issue of Caliphate and Imamate and lose heart in reaching it.”

Then the Ustad writes in his analysis about the second aim of Caliphs:

2 - They prepared ground to confirm and establish Caliphate in favor of those whom they held in their view and choice. They tried to create such conditions and circumstances, which could keep out Ali and any member of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) of the Prophet from getting Caliphate.

The Ustad dwells on political calculations of Caliphs towards attaining these aims. He produces historical documents. He counts ten attitudes in this respect and deals each of them individually.

Deviation in Criticism of Ali about Caliphs

Introduction

Some supporters of Islamic unity have produced a feeble analysis. They claim thereupon that no political difference existed between Ali and Caliphs. However in this respect they face a difficulty. This difficulty is the strong and harsh criticism of Caliphs from Ali.[411] The criticism is so strong that it rescinds all possibilities of naming it peace or good terms or friendship.

Therefore unity-seekers attribute this attitude and criticism of Ali to his higher morals and decorum in comparison to ability of Caliphs in administration of government. By this analysis and their own, they have gone so far as to forget the holy text in this respect. All these endeavors at whatever cost, are to give credit to the plot of Saqifah. They think that the only shortcoming of Saqifah was absence of Ali.[412] To propagate this conjecture they do not refrain from laying hands on whatever comes handy to them. Here is one:

“Is it right to say that there existed interest and opinion in the mind of Ali which concerned him? But the fact is that he saw himself stronger to Caliphate because he held himself and members of his family stronger than others in running affairs of government.”![413]

In fact, such an outlook acknowledges independence of one from the other between Imamate and rulership. The outlook confirms each a separate entity from the other.

Then on the basis of this separation, he dwells on the error of Saqifah to select an Islamic ruler with the required qualities. In the end he sees Ali as the deserving person for the post. Then from here Ali is ignored and forgotten.

Therefore criticism of Ali becomes too light. It takes up a level of complaint to the effect that one says: How this one was selected when there was a more deserving one?

So in this regard it is said:

“If words or opinions were exchanged in this regard it was baseless and outside the fundamentals of these two positions. In my opinion, it is better not to call them difference. It was only a complaint as to why the Caliph was selected without taking his opinion or consulting him.”![414]

Criticism and Scrutiny

Ustad Ja’far Subhani writes in this regard:

“Sunni scholars and researchers have written explanations of Nahjul Balagha. They have scrutinized the statements of Imam Ali (a.s.) about Caliphate one after another. They have derived this conclusion from the whole data: The aim of Imam from his statements is to show his eligibility, ability, quality and qualification for Caliphate without any gap from the Prophet. With regard to relationship: the Imam enjoyed very close ties with Prophet. With regard to learning and knowledge, the Imam was superior to all. With regard to principles of justice, information and principles of policies and politics: the Imam had no peer. Likewise in matters of running a country also he was above all companions of Prophet. For this reason, he was the befitting candidate for Caliphate. Because elders of the Ummah had decided to choose good instead of best. So they selected other than him; an inferior. Therefore Imam pointed out the tyranny that took place in this respect. He had a right to say that he was more suitable and befitting for the job.

The right which the Imam refers to goes thus: Since the day the Prophet passed away my right was taken away from me. And I was deprived of my own right. This is not a religious right that should have been given to him by head of religion. But it is meant to be a natural right, which binds each one to not give priority to an inferior when there is a superior. In other words, in the presence of a better choice it must not go to an inferior. The affairs or a task should rest on shoulders of one who is more able and befitting one. Whenever if the opposite happens, that is inspite of presence of one with more qualifications, abilities and knowledge he is ignored and another one with less abilities and more ignorance is chosen, it will be a natural right of his to complain about the tyranny done to him…”[415]

This matter is regarded as a research but it is not more than a thought. We cannot translate all words of the Imam into his personal ability. And such a personal decorum of Imam cannot be a pivot of harsh attacks on Caliphs. Whenever the problem of leadership in Islam should be solved by means of referendum, consultation or negotiation, one who surpasses in all qualities the others and yet is ignored and not elected he cannot regard himself as a rightful one or the post is his right. To withdraw to him is a tyranny. He cannot attack bitterly those who have taken his place. But such is not the case. We do not see such a tone in Imam’s speeches. He considers himself the true rightful one to belong to the post. He regards it a tyranny in him if he were to withdraw from the arena. He considers Quraish tyrants to him and trespassers and transgressors on his rights, can such harsh words be justified because of his self-decorum? It is never correct to represent the criticism of Caliphate of Caliphs as his personal demeanor. These words of the Imam go a great deal to prove that Caliphate was his established right. The Imam regarded deviation in behavior towards him as deviation in truth. Such a firmness in his belief towards Caliphate cannot be but by the text of Quran or a divine decree. Else, there is no other reason, which could make one sure and certain to such an extent.

Such interpretations cannot be translated into a priority. Those who interpret statements of Imam in this way are judging in advance. Their belief rests in elected Caliphate, which is a setback to them to evaluate words of Imam.”[416]

Taking into consideration such harsh criticism of Imam to Caliphs, which was right of Imam and rightful to him - a right vested to him directly from God, can we accept that:

“The Imam had not abused Caliphs in a fashion common among masses, but on the contrary, he had on many occasions even praised them.”![417]

Such vague and hallow claims cannot be encouraging factors to eradicate the principle of Baraat and put into practice praising Caliphs?

“It will certainly be so because it crawls and creeps on a belief that by doing so we are following Ali’s practice.”![418]

Is it reasonable that the conduct of Imam which must be a model, will praise, that too on several occasions, those who enacted Saqifah to deprive him of God-bestowed right of Caliphate? Besides, they attacked Zahra’s house. Beyond this they set fire to its door. As a result, his wife miscarried and she herself later died - a death of martyrdom.

Discourse Eight: To Acknowledge the Legitimacy of Caliphs’ Government

Introduction

Ultimately, an outlook comes into being which is much pitiable. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is freed from the circle of usurpation of Ali that has surrounded it for so long. Further, we give to it a total legitimacy. Therefore we draw in red the mark of cancellation over differences sprung from argument of Imamate and Caliphate and dispatched wholesomely to be forgotten! Why all this? Because we do not care nor do we see ourselves bound to maintain standard of originality and sincerity of the idea for sake of Islamic unity.

They say:

“The issue of being a Caliph has two stages and priorities:

First priority: Adherence to holy text that embraces Caliphate and Imamate of Ali and his family…

Second Priority: In exceptional cases or conditions such as absence of social ground to get first priority or insurgency of masses or majority of the people due to any reason. This gains legitimacy and comes into effect.”![419]

In other words, this wrong thinking acknowledges that:

They discarded and sidelined Caliphate, which was based on foundation of holy texts and appointment from the side of God. Leaving this authentic Caliphate, they go after a fake one and immediately a Caliph is chosen by people and consultants of Emigrants and Helpers.

Therefore appointment of Caliph by Ummah takes legitimacy to itself and becomes Islamic and gains religious dimension. As such, the elected Caliphate becomes legitimate.

It is said:

“Certainly this very priority became effective after passing away of Prophet…”![420]

This perverted outlook tries to create Islamic unity under its attractive heading: The Second Priority and it takes to defend Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. They say:

“In this long argument, acceptance of two priorities in the issue of Caliphate brings forth two outlooks. The first outlook suffices on first priority and repudiates the second. This enfolds and enwraps repudiation of legitimacy of Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. We must admit here that Shia mentality too is the same.

But the second outlook obliges to acknowledge legitimacy of Caliphate of Caliphs. I insist that we in our time itself must scrutinize the matter from this outlook.”![421]

Designers of this perverted outlook are followers of the route of Islamic unity. They invite to follow this outlook. It means acceptance of getting effective Caliphate of consultation and its legitimacy immediately after passing away of Prophet. They invite to this thought and say:

“Those who are supporters of Islamic unity, closeness of sects and inviters of nearness should know that in these days it is a necessity. In such a circumstance as this we should follow the width and length of this very same outlook…

If this group wants to reach by means of persistence over the first outlook to unity, it appears impossible…”![422]

Scrutiny and Criticism

Such an attitude tries to give to the plot of hypocrite emigrants[423] in Saqifah Bani Saada a reactionary feature committed in relation to second priority about Islamic Caliphate. By so doing they could provide and furnish to Abu Bakr a religious ground to the rulership he captured.

It was on the basis of this theory all these things took place after disobedience of society from Caliphate of Ali, in addition to absence of social grounds for establishment of Alawi government. In other words, it took place after effectiveness and getting legitimacy of the second.

To justify this perverted idea we must first acknowledge the gathering of Ansaar in Saqifah as a most distinguished factor[424] that wipes out and eliminates conditions necessary to establishment of Alawi government.

They say thus:

“The initiators in this matter are Ansaar. They (Helpers) without pre-knowledge or any consultation gathered in Saqifah Saad Bani Saada. In that gathering no one mentioned the name of Ali or Bani Hashim.”![425]

“In the meeting name of Ali or Bani Hashim was not mentioned. The matter of Quranic verse or text that confirms Caliphate of Ali was overlooked and ignored which was first priority and even ground for second priority was prepared.”![426]

Then to pretend that Emigrants present in Saqifah did not have any plan to lay hand upon Caliphate. They witnessed the ground that was made to usurp the right of Ali - that is Caliphate. They witnessed that Helpers and Emigrants extended validity and legality to election of Caliph. Here the second priority got accomplished. They took step for a legitimate endeavor to push Abu Bakr to the seat of Caliphate.

They say thus:

“Paying allegiance to Abu Bakr was not a pre-prepared plot as they say or claim.”![427]

Yes, in this oblique thinking the Caliph and his supporters were introduced as believers and committed to religious rulings and regulations and to Islamic teachings. They were obedient to first priority - that is they were believers in Holy Text and divine decree about appointment of Caliph prior to the meeting.

They got the news of meeting in Saqifah Bani Saada. There the gathering became opposed to Caliphate of Ali. Besides, there was no pre-prepared ground necessary to get hold of Caliphate of category of the first priority.

He participated because of his corruption to religion and his obligation to faith. It was a gathering of mischief and corruption. He acted upon God’s rulings and Islamic teachings and on the second priority. As such, Abu Bakr was chosen to Caliphate.

They say:

“Abu Bakr with his past had a position among companions of Prophet that people went to him when they turned away from Ali.”![428]

Therefore the designer of this wrong thinking believes:

“Ali was deprived of grounds available to Abu Bakr.”![429]

On this perverted outlook, it must be said:

Proceedings of Abu Bakr and his supporters were not a tyranny to Ali. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate too was not illegitimate nor was it usurpation. It took place after second priority become effective!

Thus it is said:

“Inspite of the conditions Ali has accepted its validity.”![430]

“Certainly this priority was in effect after passing away of Prophet. Ali finally agreed and paid allegiance to Caliphs. He sincerely co-operated with them.”![431]

“Ali paid allegiance to Abu Bakr by his will. There was no compulsion upon him. He co-operated with him in all events. Later he continued the same with Umar. He had also praised the two.”![432]

Unanswered Questions

Designers of this theory (believers of second priority in Caliphate) invite all unity-seekers to:

“Follow the same broad outlook; and for its evidences search in Quran or tradition, or within lines of history.”![433]

Therefore at the end of this analysis all scholars and researchers are invited to find out scientific and committed answers to the queries as hereunder. The answers are applied to outcome of above theory.

In fact, if the second priority in Caliphate be a religious factor or that of faith or Islamic one; and Caliphate takes shape in event of that getting activated, Caliphate becomes legitimate. From the other side, we believe that both Ali and Zahra were infallible and sincerely obedient to God. So:

Question 1: What was the reason in attacking Zahra’s house by the gang of Abu Bakr? Why the sanctity of Zahra’s privacy was trespassed and transgressed?

Question 2: What was the reason in the attack on the person of Zahra and hitting and beating her physically which resulted in her miscarriage ending in the martyrdom of Mohsin?

Question 3: What was the reason in tying rope around the neck of Ali and dragging him by force to the mosque?

Question 4: What was the reason in Ali’s firm and strong refusal to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Question 5: What was the reason in Ali’s invitation to Muhajireen and Ansaar for an armed uprising against Abu Bakr?

Question 6: What was the reason of bloody defense of Zahra in the matter of extracting Ali’s allegiance for Abu Bakr?

Question 7: What was the reason for such heavy wrath and anguish of Zahra against the Caliph and his associates?

Question 8: What was the reason in the early and untimely death of Zahra in the early days of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate?

Question 9: What was the reason in Zahra being buried at night? What was the reason for Caliph and his colleagues not participating in burial ceremonies?

We leave the judgment to you; and find the conclusions yourself with the help of impartiality, sagacity and true information and justice.

We want all interested readers to answer these questions based on historical documents from Shia and Sunni sources. We invite them to refer to the following sources:

Calamities of Zahra (Vol. 2) by Allamah Ja’far Murtuza Amili.

The Agonies of Zahra translation of the above book by Muhammad SepehriAttack on Fatima’s house by Shaykh Abdul Zahra MahdiThe Manifest proof of Zahra’s martyrdom by Ustad Ja’far SubhaniDisappointment in Fire translation of the above book by Sayyid Abdul Hasan ImraniDarkness of Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Kareem AqeeliMohsin bin Fatima Zahra by Shaykh Abdul Mohsin QataifiWhere is Justice? Mohsin son of the Chief of Believers by Wafiq Saad AmaliPains of Fatima by Shaykh Abdullah NasirBurning of Fatima’s house by Shaykh Husain Ghaib GholamiFire on the House of Revelation by Sayyid Muhammad Husain SajjadHouse on fire by Masoodpur AghayeeWhat happened to Fatima’s house? by Sayyid Abdul Hasan Husaini Martyrdom of my Mother Zahra by Ghulam Reza Ali Khan