A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH

www.alhassanain.org/english

A Victim Lost In Saqifah

Vol. 2

BY: ALI LABBAF

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SAYYID MUHAMMAD DHIYABAADI

TRANSLATED BY A GROUP OF TRANSLATORS

ANSARIYAN PUBLICATIONS

www.alhassanain.org/english

Labbaf, Ali,

A Victim Lost in Saqifah/ Ali Labbaf; Translated by Hassan Najafi.-Qum: Ansariyan, 2008.

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8

Original Title: مظلومي گمشده در سقيفه

1. Saqifeh Bani Sa’edeh. 2. Ali ibn Abitaleb, Imam I. 599 - 661 - Proof of Calihpate. I. Najafi, Hasan, Tr.

294.452 BP 223.54 .L32

مظلوم السقيفة باللّغة الانجليزية

Revised Edition with Comprehensive Additions

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH

Author: Ali Labbaf

With an introduction by Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

Translator: Dr. Hasan Najafi

Publisher: Ansariyan Publications

First Edition: 2008 -1429 - 1387

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8

ANSARIYAN PUBLICATIONS

Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran

Email: ansarian@noornet.net & Int_ansarian@yahoo.com

www.ansariyan.org & www.ansariyan.net

Notice:

This version is published on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english

The composing errors are not corrected.

Table of Contents

Dedicated to: 10

Acknowledgement 11

Discourse One: Criticism and Investigation about Propaganda of Silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 12

Doubts Created Regarding Silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 12

First Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Letting go of Caliphate linked with consent’ 12

Style of criticizing the first category of conjectures 12

Second Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Detachment of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from Caliphate and overlooking it, after six months of Abu Bakr’ Caliphate’ 12

Style of criticizing the second category of conjectures 12

Third Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Absence of plan of right of Caliphate and not proving the School of Imamate’ 13

Style of criticizing the third category of conjectures 13

Did Amirul Momineen (a.s.) Leave Caliphate and Overlook his Rights? 13

Correct Analysis about Ali’s reaction to Usurpation of Caliphate 14

CONCLUSION 17

Correct Interpretation Ali’s Silence and its Causes 18

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and his Stern Refusal to Pay Allegiance to Abu Bakr 19

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and Declaration of Illegitimacy of Caliphate 21

Final Judgment on Silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 22

On the whole it can be said: 25

To what extent Ali Believed in Preserving Silence? 25

Did Ali Refrain from Arguing about Imamate? 26

Are Shias obliged to avoid discussion on Caliphate…? 32

Are Shias obliged not to Debate on Imamate? 36

Another point 37

Discourse Two: Criticism and Scrutiny of Analyses Propagated about Consultation of Caliphs with Ali 40

What doubts are propagated in this regard? 40

Does Consultation Alone Suffices to Prove Good Relations? 40

Analysis of Consultation of Caliphs with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) on the basis of Statistical Scrutiny 41

Chart of Consultations of Three Caliphs with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 41

What does Scrutiny of Statistics show? 50

A) Items of Abu Bakr’s Consultation with Imam Ali (a.s.) 50

B) Items of consultation of Umar with Imam Ali (a.s.) 51

Did the Second Caliph always consult Ali? Did he always accept his view? 51

C) Instances of Uthman consulting Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) 52

Results of Statistical Analysis 53

Final Analysis about Caliphs’ Consultation with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 54

Pay attention to the following historical document: 55

Theological Reminder 57

Differences between the Aims of Caliphs and Ali Regarding Consultations 58

Discourse Three: Criticism and Scrutiny of Analyses : Publicized regarding Ali’s cooperation with Caliphs’ Government 60

Conjectures spread in this regard 60

What do Historical Documents and Sources Indicate? 60

About Imam’s Co-operation with the Second Caliph it can be said: 61

Conclusion 62

Analysis of Ali’s participation in Caliphs’ Government 63

What was Caliphs’ Aim in Giving Government Responsibilities to Ali? 63

Was Ali given a Governmental responsibility during the tenure of the Caliphs? 66

Part A: Analysis of Acceptance of Responsibility for Some Particular Instances 66

Part B: Surrendering Responsibility to Ali in Some Particular Items 66

Did Amirul Momineen (a.s.) have Positive Outlook to Battles of Caliph’s Period? 69

Did associates of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) have Active Presence in Caliphs’ government? 70

Conclusion 72

Conjecture mentioned in Haft Aasmaan Magazine^[241] - A Reply to it 72

Criticism and Scrutiny of Ali’s Positive Outlook to Battles 75

Participation of Hasan and Husain (a.s.) in battles of Caliphs 77

Introduction 77

Criticism and Analysis 77

Scrutiny of Participation of Ali’s Companions in Battles and Government of Caliphs 79

Are Battles of Caliphs Worth Defending? 79

Forced Participations of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) in Caliphs’ Government 82

Did Amirul Momineen (a.s.) Always Attend Caliphs’ Prayers? 84

Deviation in Narration from Shia Sources 84

Point One 85

Result drawn from contemplating on these headings: 85

Point Two 85

Point Three 86

Discourse Four: Scrutiny and Criticism of Analyses Publicized in Respect of Relations between Caliphs and Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 90

What conjectures are presented in this regard? 90

Group One: 90

Group Two: 90

Part A) Relations of the First Caliph with the Family of Revelation (a.s.) 90

Historical Reminder 93

Examples of statements in Sunni sources about Zahra’s anger on Abu Bakr 95

Document no. 1 95

Document no. 2 95

Document no. 3 95

Document no. 4 95

Document no. 5 95

Document no. 6 95

Document no. 7 95

Aim of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in taking over the Guardianship of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr? 96

Part B) Relations of the Second Caliph with the Family of Revelation (a.s.) 97

A glance at historical documents 98

Conclusion 101

Did the Second Caliph desire Ali to be Caliph after him? 102

Scrutiny of the legend of Second Caliph’s Marriage with Umme Kulthum 103

A) The prosperity in the next world for Umar by means of this marriage 103

B) Immunity of Second Caliph about crimes committed against Ahle Bayt (a.s.) 104

C) Suggestion of Umar having gained the satisfaction of Ahle Bayt particularly that of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) 104

D) Baraat, a principle of Shia belief now is put under question 104

E) Enmity and rancor of Umar towards Ali is covered 104

F) To show relations between Ali and Umar to be friendly 104

G) Giving legitimacy to Umar’s Caliphate and distancing it from the term of usurpation 104

Can only marriage with bin Hashim be a proof of friendship? 105

Criticism and Investigation 105

View of the first category of Shia scholars 105

Why this rumor gained currency? 107

Outlook of second category of Shia scholars 108

Regarding the threats of Caliph it can be said: 110

Opinion of Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani 111

How many daughters did Ali have named Umme Kulthum? 113

Outlook of Ayatullah Marashi Najafi 114

Another Analysis about the Marriage of Umme Kulthum with Umar 114

Part C) Relations of the Third Caliph with the House of Divine Revelation 115

A glance at historical documents 115

Discourse Five: Publicized Analyses about the relation of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) with Caliphs 117

A) Ali’s criticism of Caliphs 117

B) Why Ali named his sons after Caliphs? 119

Name of Muawiyah in use 120

Name of Yazid in use 120

Another outlook about these namings 122

C) Are narrations attributed to Ali about his praise of Caliphs correct? 122

Part A: Narrations in Sunni books 122

Part B: Narrations mentioned in Nahjul Balagha and Al-Gharaat 124

Dr. Muhammad Asadi Garmarudi says in reply: 124

The Researcher Shushtari’s outlook 125

Point One: 127

Point Two: 127

Point Three: 127

Point Four: 128

Final Point: 128

D) Had Ali accepted the legitimacy of Caliphs’ Government? 129

Ustad Ja’far Subhani in reply to this conjecture writes: 129

The text of the Imam’s letter to Muawiyah copied from Waqatus Siffeen 130

Conclusion 131

Final conclusion: Zahra’s Martyrdom is not Fiction 133

Warning: 133

Notes 135

Dedicated to:

Zahra (s.a.) who bore most pains until the moment of her martyrdom because of Saqifah.

Fatima Research and Study Group

Acknowledgement

The Ansariyan Publications would like to express acknowledgement to Syed Athar Rizvi and Dr. Hasan Najafi for their contributions to the translation of this work into English.

Discourse One: Criticism and Investigation about Propaganda of Silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)

Doubts Created Regarding Silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)

Deviated analyses regarding the silence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) can be divided into three categories:

First Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Letting go of Caliphate linked with consent’

One of the most important deviated consequences of this conjecture is release of Abu Bakr’s regime from the circle of usurpation and granting legitimacy to his Caliphate.

This partiality in the sources of Ahle Sunnat has succeeded in giving false coverings based on ‘immediate Bay’at’ of His Eminence, to Abu Bakr.

By the same argument, sometimes instead of ‘Letting go of Caliphate linked with consent’ they talk about ‘Willful Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Abu Bakr’ and that also in the initial period of his Caliphate!

Style of criticizing the first category of conjectures

[1]

Absurd claims of ‘Willing renouncement of Caliphate’ can be reviewed on the basis of two kinds of authentic documents:

A) Documents indicating ‘efforts of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in bringing down the usurped caliphate of Abu Bakr’.

B) Documents indicating ‘Forced demand of Bay’at’ and ‘severe opposition of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from accepting it’.

[Documents and sources of siege on the house of Fatima (s.a.)]

Second Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Detachment of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from Caliphate and overlooking it, after six months of Abu Bakr’ Caliphate’

One of the most important evil results of these doubts is forgetting the historical documents regarding attack on the house of Fatima (s.a.).

Because in this deviated partiality that talks of the allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Abu Bakr after some months they have very cleverly put a lid on the oppressions and plots that were the highlights of the initial period of Abu Bakr’s rule.

In the same way among the other deviated repercussions of this conjecture is that it becomes the basis to subsequent claims of ‘good relations of Ali and Caliphs’. This also goes a long way in making all forget the terrible crimes committed by usurpers of Caliphate in the initial period.

Style of criticizing the second category of conjectures

Absurd claim of ‘gradual withdrawal of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from Caliphate and overlooking it’ although after passing of some months in the Caliphate of Abu Bakr can be evaluated in the following two ways:

A)

Criticism and analysis of ‘False narrations about the willful allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Abu Bakr after six months’.[2]

Criticism and analysis of ‘Conjectures regarding the co-operation of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) with Caliphs’.[3]

Third Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Absence of plan of right of Caliphate and not proving the School of Imamate’.

These conjectures, sometimes are posed in an indirect way and under the ‘conjectures of two previous categories’ and sometimes also regarding ‘refusal to prove the Alawi Imamate and Wilayat’.

The aim of posing such types doubts is ‘To invite Shias to observe silence from planning discussions related to Caliphate and Successorship of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)’.

Style of criticizing the third category of conjectures

Absurd claims of ‘Refusal of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from plan of the right of Caliphate and his remaining silent from explaining the School of Imamate’ can be criticized on the basis of ‘debates of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)’ with support of ‘statements of His Eminence (a.s.) in the matter of his severe struggle of having his claim recorded in History’.[4]

Did Amirul Momineen (a.s.) Leave Caliphate and Overlook his Rights?

Analyses of unity-seekers regarding the political and social stances of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) after passing away of Prophet are quite untrue and far from reality because they have compared it to ‘silence’.

The prime aim of those who inject this suspicion about the silence is to interpret it to effect of foregoing his right and overlooking to demand it. They sketch in a way that the reader concludes that His Eminence (a.s.) did not take any action against usurpation of his right. He also impeded others to take any action in this respect.

The scope of these conjectures has spread to such an extent that they claim:

“Caliphate was the very first issue on which Imam Ali (a.s.) maintained silence in his attitude towards it. He did not allow anyone to make Caliphate a ground for difference in the Ummah or utilize the situation to their own benefit.”![5]

To check and scrutinize this suspicion first it is necessary to see that the conjecture-coiner has so misused events of history that he has reached to this deviation:

“He did not allow anyone to make Caliphate a ground for difference”!

Study of historical events that occurred after Saqifah Bani Saada show that:

“When Abu Sufyan became aware of the event of Saqifah. He voiced national and racial motives and said to Ali: Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you. I swear by God if you want I will fill up Medina with warriors and horses…Ali rejected the offer. By this he showed that in his political school it was not correct to take advantage of everything for the sake of aim. Ali had no doubt that the right was his. But to reach it he did not see proper to use whatever means possible. So understanding Abu Sufyan’s intention, he refused him. The aim of Abu Sufyan was to create differences, corruption and battle among Muslims. Therefore Ali terms this act of Abu Sufyan as malefic and mischievous.”[6]

This is the only case where Ali has shown his disagreement with support expressed to him. So it seems that the suspect has based his suspicion thereat; and makes it a proof to support the idea. In fact the reaction of Ali was against military support of Abu Sufyan. It also was to defeat his intention of seizing complete power or taking share for Bani Umayyah.[7]

According to this analysis, the reaction of Ali cannot be attributed to his agreement to usurpation of Caliphate.

Correct Analysis about Ali’s reaction to Usurpation of Caliphate

Why Ali did not show negative reaction (similar to one referred) to his friends’ support, had his purpose been silence against usurpation of his right? If the aim of Imam Ali (a.s.) was silence what about the program that accompanied his claim to take back his right; what would it mean?

“Ali did not accept allegiance of Abu Sufyan. On the other hand he strongly refrained from paying allegiance to the new authority of Abu Bakr. So he showed his rejection.”[8]

“Acquisition of power and uniting his friends, were his other steps. When Bay’at of Abu Bakr took place, Ali (a.s.) began to mobilize his friends, and in this matter he was morally and personally supported by his wife, Fatima, the daughter of Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”[9]

“From this stage onwards the campaign of Ali appears more serious and ardent. It takes to itself a special feature against the new regime. The house of Prophet’s daughter defended him; Fatima herself came out as a powerful support to Ali. On some cases, she takes the initiative to express her opposition to the extent of physical brawl.”[10]

“In order to take back his lost right Ali even invited people to pay allegiance to him.”

Among the actions that Imam Ali (a.s.) undertook was that he and wife kept visiting the gatherings of Ansaar and asking for their support.”[11]

In order to finalize his argument on Muslim and not to leave any room to posterity to interpret wrongly his silence as concurrence with new order and his withdrawal willingly from his right to lead Islamic Mission, he kept visiting the houses of Muslims in Medina. He reminded them about the words and recommendations of Prophet concerning succession after him. He insisted on them to give him a hand in returning Caliphate to its real and correct tract.”[12]

“In the very early days when the Ummah had gone astray and perverted he took his sons, Hasan and Husain and his wife, Fatima and kept knocking door after door of Ansaar (Helpers). It is remarkable to mention here that he was blamed for being too greedy for Caliphate because of his persistence on his right, which he wanted history to record.”[13]

“Therefore from each step he took, it becomes evident that his uprising was against backward movement to days of ignorance prior to Islam.”[14]

“If actions of Imam (a.s.) had not been there in this regard it might have happened that people would have doubted in his being immediate Caliph of Prophet and the possibility would have strengthened that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) has abrogated his insistence on Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (a.s.).”[15]

“He knew very well that his silence might cause the people, under the influence of false propaganda of usurpers, to think that he was supporting the Saqifah matter hence in order to put into record his actual stance he broke his silence.”[16]

“In this matter the close friends of His Eminence (a.s.) cooperated with him. And the close companions of Prophet like Abu Zar, Salman, Khalid bin Saeed, Abu Ayyub Ansaari, Uthman bin Haneef, Baraa bin Azib - all these gathered in the mosque. They sincerely declared their support to Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.).”[17]

“They launched arguments and put forth such reasoning advocating the right of Ali that Abu Bakr could not dare to come out of his house for three days. Till on the third day his colleagues went to his house with naked swords and brought him out at the point of sword. They seated him at the pulpit of the Prophet. They threatened others by sword that no one had a right to talk about the subject. In modern terms a censorship was imposed.

From this point no one moved or spoke.”[18]

All these historical evidences show that the Imam did not leave any stone unturned in defending Alawi School and Imamate. According to conditions of those times, he did whatever was possible to him. He did not sit idle to see his right usurped. But Muslims had gone somnolent and sluggish. They stooped to wrong but did not erect their backs to support the truth.

Historical evidences regarding his sharp debates prove this point:

“Abu Bakr in the early days of Caliphate sent the following message to the Imam: Do comply with request of Caliph of the Prophet of Allah and pay allegiance to him. Imam told the messenger: How soon you attribute a lie to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.). He and his supporters know well that Allah and His Messenger has not installed as Caliph anyone except me.[19]

When they took the Imam to the Mosque he began the dialogue and asked Abu Bakr: Did you not pay allegiance to me yesterday at the command of the Prophet of Allah?[20]

Then the Imam addressed the audience in the mosque reminding them of all that the Prophet had said about him. He also reminded them of the event of Ghadeer and the Prophet’s words regarding him on that occasion.

All agreed and acknowledged Ali’s veracity. Even Abu Bakr acknowledged having had paid allegiance to Ali.[21]

Zaid bin Arqam says that twelve tribal chiefs were present there who attested the words of Imam Ali (a.s.). Gradually the argument got hotter and a row and din arose in the Masjid. Umar feared that people will go to Ali’s side. So he upset the gathering and people left the mosque.[22] ”[23]

These historical documents show that His Eminence (a.s.) in the most severe conditions; that is in the time when they demanded him to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr under threat to his life, argued the validity of his Caliphate and spoke in support of the School of Imamate and Alawi Caliphate. He tried to regain his usurped position in every way.

“Ali (a.s.) always during the Caliphate of Caliphs never refrained from expressing the matter that Caliphate was a right linked to him.”[24]

Ali (a.s.) did not refrain from expressing and demanding his rights and complaining against those who had usurped it. He was very vocal about his demands and he did not consider it to be an impediment to Muslim unity.”[25]

“To think that Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) did not mention anything about his rightfulness is a view opposed to historical reality.”[26]

Careful scrutiny of recorded narrations clearly shows that His Eminence never abandoned his rights and did not overlook them at all and he never left them to the discretion of the Caliphs and he was not at all silent about them. Although it is a matter of regret that they have altered the public debates of His Eminence (a.s.) that took place among the Muslims. Thus it is said:

“Indeed during the period of Caliphs, in the consultant committees and among the special companions he debated about his rights, but he did not do so among the general populace of Muslims! Because he feared sedition and movement against the machinery of Caliphate and due to this in my personal view and confessions of some researchers of the story of Ghadeer, he remained silent about the divine right of the Wilayat of Ahle Bayt.”![27]

On the basis of this conjecture, firstly:

Obvious steps and repeated public debates of His Eminence (a.s.) are shown to be special and private discussions; as if His Eminence (a.s.) did not lay the foundation of awakening of the people!

Absence of an open and widespread revolt of the Imam (a.s.) and his refraining from a large scale attack on the regime is interpreted to be an effort for keeping the Caliphs safe!

Yes, this conjecture creates such a picture in the mind of readers that Imam (a.s.) was never vocal in public about the divine right of his Imamate and Wilayat.

Now that if continuous and repeated efforts of the Imam in creating awareness had not been witnessed its evidence would have needed to be obtained from somewhere else (other than silence before the usurpation of Caliphate).

Certainly, it must be asked:

“Did the people of that time forget all that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) had told about his cousin, Ali (a.s.)? And they were waiting for Ali (a.s.) to remind and awaken them to honor his rights?

They detachment from Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) was not due to their complete ignorance about the moral status of His Eminence so that on hearing about his victimization they would wake up and rise up in his support.

His mission was not like the proclamation of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) in the beginning that he should be in search for supporters in his mission of spreading Islam.

In the days following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) those who wanted made Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) their leader. They knew him as was necessary and those who followed others were not such that with a single call of Ali for help they would rise up in his support and harness the motives of his opposition.”

CONCLUSION

Interpretation of silence of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) by the partiality regarding ‘overlooking Caliphate and abandoning willingly and also absence of his expression of his right of Caliphate’ is against historical evidences and realities and evidences for protecting Islamic unity cannot conceal these types of deviations in analysis of historical events. Yet they claim:

“The Imam according to his own account held his hand and kindly let go of his right! Because the wellbeing and benefit of the religion necessitated his painful silence and abandoning! A right whose eligibility was confirmed in his own view as well by others”!

“When some people usurped the absolute right of Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.), he could have risen up against them in an armed uprising, but only for the sake of complete wellbeing of Islam and guarding the unity and integration of Muslims and that the fresh converts do not go back to their infidelity and the enemies of Islam may not get a chance to benefit from the situation and that the new faith of Islam may not be destroyed in the nascent stage, he overlooked his absolute right”!

“Ali (a.s.) for the sake of Islamic unity abandoned his own right and that of his wife! He bore failures and hardships but in all his dealings preferred unity and oneness of Muslims and also made his wife and sons observe this.”!

“And in this way he renounced divine text (Nass) of his successorship, which his friends and relatives use as proof.”!

“Inspite of being obdurate on their rights till that time, they overlooked it.”!

Do the Imams Have Any Authority on the Universe?

The mercenary writers have tried more than one way to insult the followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad. Among these shameful ways is the allegation that the Shi'ite Muslims believe that the Imams from the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad control the atoms of the universe. These writers declare that such a belief is a belief in the divinity of the Imams.

They tried to prove this accusation by another allegation. They accused the revolutionary Islamic leader, Imam Khumayni, of saying in one of his books or lectures that the Imams from the Members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad control the atoms of the universe.

I have never read such a statement in the books or lectures of Imam Khumayni. However, let us assume that he indeed said this. But let us try to understand his words instead of deliberately trying to misunderstand them.

Did the revolutionary leader mean that the Imams have an independent authority over the atoms of nature separate from the authority of God Almighty? Did he mean that the Imams are able, by their own power, to change the course of nature? Could he not have meant that the Imams are so absolutely obedient to God, and that because of their purity and obedience to Him, He responds to their prayers? Therefore, if they ask Him to change a natural course, their prayers are answered.

There is no doubt that Imam Khumayni does not think that the Imams have power independent from the Almighty. He is too pure and righteous to voice such a thing, write it, or think it. He is one of the most righteous, pure, and obedient to the Almighty.

If Imam Khumayni had said that the Imams can control the atoms of the universe, he undoubtedly meant that the Imams of the House of the Prophet Muhammad had ascended in their obedience and worship to God to such a high degree that they could have asked the Almighty to transform the atoms of one object into the atoms of another, and He would have granted their request. Furthermore, if they had asked Him to revive a dead person, God would have brought him back to life. Is this a belief in the divinity of the Imams?

Those who attribute such a statement to Imam Khumayni and consider it a deviation from the Islamic course should give the matter serious thought. They should test such a statement with the contents of the Holy Qur'an. The Great Book informs us of the miracles of the Prophets of God.

And what is that in thy right hand, O Moses? He said: This is my staff. On it, I lean, and with it, I beat branches for my sheep, and in it I find other uses.

"God said: Cast it down, O Moses! He cast it down, and behold! It became a snake, slithering. God said:

Grasp it and fear not. We shall return it to its former state.

"And draw thy hand to your side, it will come forth white without harm. That will be another miracle." (20: 17-22).

This means that the dead cells which composed the rod of Moses were transformed into living cells. Then those living cells miraculously went back to dead cells. In chapter Al-Shu'ara, we read the following words of the Almighty:

"We revealed to Moses: Strike the sea with thy staff. It parted, and each part was like a huge mountain." (26: 64)

Does this not mean that God made the sea obedient to Moses to such a degree that Moses was able to divide the water of the sea into two solid parts, each of them as huge as a mountain in height and size?

The Qur'an Informs Us Of Jesus

In Ali- 'Imran, we read that the Almighty informed us about Jesus:

"And we will make him a messenger to the children of Israel (with this message): I come to you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I raise the dead by Allah's leave . ." (3:49)

Here we see that the Almighty enabled Jesus to transform a piece of clay into a living bird that could fly like other birds. Is this the work of Moses or Jesus? Would the Qur'an invite us to deify someone other than God?

The Qur'an Informs Us Of Muhammad

In regard to the Prophet Muhammad, we read God's word in the chapter of The Moon:

"The hour (of judgement) is near, and the moon has been split. But if they see a sign, they turn away and say: This is prolonged magic." (54: 1-2)

This verse informs us that Allah split the moon in response to His Messenger Muhammad's prayer, and this never happened before the time of Muhammad.

A Tree Walked In Response To The Order Of Muhammad

We find in Nahj al-Balaghah that Imam Ali reported that he was with the Prophet when the chieftains of Quraysh challenged him and asked him to order a nearby tree to uproot and walk to him. They said that this would be visible evidence of his prophethood. The Messenger of God spoke to the tree saying:

"Tree, if you believe in Allah and the Hereafter and know that I am a Messenger of God, uproot and walk until you stand in front of me, with permission of God."

The tree, obeying the Prophet, uprooted and walked to him while making a loud noise like the wings of a flying bird.

When the chiefs saw the tree standing in front of the prophet, they asked him to make half the tree come forward and keep the other half in its original place. When he did that, they said: "Let the half that came to you go back to the other half. He did." (Nahj al-Balaghah, part 2, pp.158-9)

Ibn Hisham reported similar to this:

"Rukanah Al-Muttalibi was the strongest man in Mecca. He met the Messenger outside Mecca and the Messenger invited him to Islam. Rukanah said: "If you can prove that you are a true messenger, I will follow you." The Messenger said: "What do you say if I wrestle you down? Will that make you believe that I am a true prophet?" Rukanah said: "Yes." The Prophet wrestled him down twice. Rukanah said: "Muhammad, this is really amazing. Did you really wrestle me?" The Prophet said: "I will show you more amazing things than this if you obey God and follow my way."

Rukanah said: What is it? The Prophet said: "I will call this tree which you are looking at, and it will come to me." Rukanah said: Call it, and the Prophet called it. The tree came until it stood in front of him. The Prophet said to it: "Go back to your place," and it went to its original place. (Ibn Hisham, AI-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah, part 1, page 391)

These miracles which occurred in response to prayers of the Messenger of God testify, as documented in the Qur'an, that Allah empowers His great servants to perform miracles by His permission. In other words, He responds to the prayers of His Messengers by creating miracles.

What happened through the prophets does not indicate that they had any touch of divinity. On the contrary, it testifies that those prophets were true servants of God. They ascended to the highest degree of servitude to Him, and that their obedience to Him was absolute. Had they been otherwise, they would not have been able to perform any miracles, and no prayer by them would have been answered. They obeyed God completely and He responded to their prayers.

Are The Imams Like The Prophets?

It may be said that miracles are conceivable when they are attributed to messengers of God. However, the Imams of the Members of the House of the Prophet are not prophets. They were men of knowledge and righteousness, but none of them ascended to the degree of prophethood.

This is true, but the Imams from the House of the Prophet were non-prophets because the prophethood was concluded by the Messenger of God, the Prophet Muhammad. Had the Messenger not been the last of the prophets, it would have been possible for the Imams, or some of them, to be prophets. Probably other people could have become prophets as well.

The evidence of this is that the prophet said to Ali:

"You are to me like Aaron was to Moses except that there shall be no prophets after me." (al-Bukhari, his Sahih, part 5, page 24).

This means that Ali was like Aaron in everything except the prophethood.

If any of the Sunnite scholars think that we are exaggerating by saying that Ali and the Imams from his children were qualified for the prophethood if the Messenger had not been the last of the Prophets, they should remember that prominent Sunnite scholars reported similar to this concerning 'Umar.

The hadith-recorder Ahmad Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami in his book AI-Sawa'iq AI-Muhriqah, page 96, documents that Imam Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Hakim, and Al-Tabarani reported that 'Uqbah Ibn 'Amir said that the Messenger of God said:

"Had it been possible to have a prophet after me, that prophet would have been 'Umar."

Why should anyone think that it would be an exaggeration to say that Allah would make nature and the atoms of the universe obedient to the Imams of the House of the Prophet Muhammad when we do not consider it an exaggeration to say that 'Umar could have been a prophet if Muhammad had not been the final prophet.

Ibn Hajar, in his Al-Sawa'iq, page 102, reported that when Egypt was conquered by the Muslims, there was a custom to throw a girl in the Nile River on the 11th night of one of the non-Arabic months in order that the Nile would continue to flow. It was believed that without throwing a girl into it, the Nile would not flow. Amr Ibn Al-’As wrote to the Caliph 'Umar concerning this custom. 'Umar sent a message to the Nile saying:

"If you were flowing before by your own power, we do not want you to run; and if Allah is the one who makes you flow, we ask the Almighty to make you flow."

Amr Ibn Al-’As threw the letter of 'Umar into the Nile one day before the Christian commemoration of the crucifixion. The following morning they woke up to find the river flowing stronger and had gone up 48 feet in one night.

Did the Shi'ite Muslims Borrow Some Jewish Teachings?

The mercenary writers whose goal is to split the Muslims allege that a Yemenite Jew from Sana', Abdullah Ibn Saba (also called Ibn al-Sawda), adopted Islam during the reign of the third Caliph 'Uthman. They allege that Ibn Saba, through some doctrines that he spread among Muslims, was a big factor in causing the revolt against 'Uthman. The following are some of the doctrines attributed to Ibn Saba.

(1). This alleged Jew invented the idea that the Prophet Muhammad would return before the Day of Judgement. He based his allegation on the return of Jesus, saying: "If Jesus is going to come back, Muhammad will also return because he is more important than Jesus."

He also quoted the following verse from the Qur'an to support his allegation:

"Certainly the one who revealed the Qur'an to you shall return you."

These writers say that the Shi'ite school borrowed from this imaginary Jew the idea that the Prophet would return.

(2). Ibn Saba is the one who propagated the idea that Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the executor and successor of the Messenger of God. He said that there were a thousand prophets before Muhammad, and that each prophet had an executor after him, and that Ali is the executor of the Prophet. Furthermore, Ibn Saba said that the three caliphs who ruled after the Prophet were usurpers of the Islamic rule.

(3). Ibn Saba is the one who instigated the two prominent companions of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Dharr and Am-mar Ibn Yasir, against 'Uthman.

The mercenary writers also allege that this imaginary Jew met Abu Dharr in Damascus, and that he introduced him to the idea of prohibiting treasuring gold and silver. He also said that the revenue from Zakat and land tax belongs to the Muslims rather than to God.

(4). Ibn Saba persuaded the men who participated in killing 'Uthman to start the battle of Basra (at night) between Imam Ali's camp and the camp of the three leaders (A'ishah, Talhah, and Zubayr). He wanted to make each of the two armies accuse the other of starting the battle.

Let us discuss each of these allegations in order.

The Return Of The Prophet Muhammad

The attribution to Ibn Saba of the idea that the Prophet would return is ridiculous. It shows the ignorance of the mercenary writers who write such allegations. They misunderstand the history of Islam. Had these mercenaries studied Islamic history carefully, they would have known that the first one who declared the idea of the return of the Messenger of God was 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab.

Muslim historians agree that 'Umar stood at the Mosque of the Prophet when the Prophet passed away and said:

"There are hypocrite men who allege that the Messenger of God has died. Certainly the Messenger of God did not die, but he went to his Lord as Moses, son of 'Imran, went to his Lord (for receiving the Heavenly commandments). By God, Muhammad will return as Moses returned, and he shall sever the hands and legs of the men who alleged that the Messenger of Allah has died." (Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, part 2, page 655)

We cannot say that 'Umar took this idea from Abdullah Ibn Saba or any other person. Ibn Saba did not even exist at that time, not even in the imagination of Sayf bin 'Umar al-Tamimi, who invented the entire allegation.

The Shi'ite school of thought does not consider the Prophet's return a part of Islamic belief. If any Muslim believes in this, it would only be logical to say that the source of this doctrine is the second Caliph's speech on the day the Messenger of God died, rather than Ibn Saba.

The Doctrine Of Ali's Executorship

The dividers of Muslims alleged that Ibn Saba is the one who invented the doctrine of Ali's executorship. Yet history testifies that the Messenger of God himself is the one who declared that Ali would be his executor.

Imam Ali reported the following:

When the Qur'anic verse: "And warn your closest relatives" was revealed, the Messenger of God called me and said: "Ali, certainly Allah commanded me to warn my closest relatives, and I feel the difficulty of this mission. I know that when I confront them with this warning, I will not like their response." The Prophet invited the members of his clan to dine with him on a small amount of food and little milk. There were forty of them. After they ate, the Prophet spoke to them:

"Children of Abdul Muttalib, by God, I do not know of any young man from the Arabs who brought to his people better than I brought to you. I have brought to you the goodness of this world and the Hereafter. The Almighty commanded me to invite you to it. Who among you will assist me on this mission and become my brother, executor, and successor?"

No one accepted the invitation, and I said: "Messenger of God, I shall be your assistant." He held my neck and said to them: "This is my brother, executor, and successor. Listen to him and obey him." They laughed, saying to Abu Talib: He (Muhammad) commanded you to listen to your son and to obey him. (al-Tabari, al-Ta'rikh, part 2, pages 319-21)

This hadith was reported by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and Al-Bayhaqi in his book aI-Dala'il. This was also reported by a number of historians including Abu al-Fida and Ibn al-Athir. In addition, Muhammad Hussein Haykal recorded it in his book Hayat Muhammad (first edition).

Here we should ask the following question:

Imam Ali reported that the Messenger of God is the one who granted him the office of executorship, brotherhood, and successorship. Sayf Ibn 'Umar reported that the idea of the executorship of Ali had come from a Jew called Abdullah Ibn Saba. We should ask the members of the Takfeer University (who call everyone who disagrees with them "Kafir"-unbeliever) the following question: Do you believe Imam Ali's report or Sayf Ibn 'Umar's? Sayf was accused by prominent Sunnite scholars of weakness, forgery, and heresy.

Of course, we should not expect any true Muslim to choose the report of a liar such as Sayf Ibn 'Umar and reject the report of the Imam of the faithfuls, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the brother of the Prophet. The Messenger of God once said to Ali:

"Would you not be pleased to be to me like Aaron was to Moses, but there shall be no Prophet after me?" (al-Bukhari in his Sahih reported this through his channel to Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, part 6, page 3). Muslim also reported this in his Sahih, part 15, page 176.

Hadith Al-Ghadir

Do the mercenary writers who endeavor to spread hostility among Muslims forget that while returning from his farewell pilgrimage, and in the presence of over a hundred thousand pilgrims, the Messenger of God declared:

"Do I not have more right over the believers than they have over themselves?"

"They answered: 'Yes, Messenger of God.'

"The Prophet held up the hand of Ali and said:

'Whoever I am his Mawla (leader), this Ali is his Mawla. God, love whoever loves him, and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.' "

No Muslim would doubt that the Messenger of God is the leader of all Muslims from all generations. The Prophet in his statement granted Ali the same position as his when he said that Ali is the leader of everyone who follows the Prophet.

This declaration which was reported by about a hundred companions does not just indicate that Ali is the executor of the Prophet, but also indicates that Ali takes the place of the Messenger in the leadership of all Muslims. However, these mercenaries still allow themselves to say that the belief that Ali was the executor of the Messenger had come through a Jew who declared his Islam during the days of 'Uthman.

The Mercenaries Try To Defame The Two Beloved Companions Of The Prophet, Abu Dharr And Ammar Ibn Yasir

The mercenary workers did not even hesitate to attack the outstanding companions, Abu Dharr and Ammar. They said that Abu Dharr and Ammar met the imaginary Jew Ibn Saba, were affected by his propaganda, and thus turned against 'Uthman.

They say this while history testifies that Abu Dharr said to 'Uthman in the presence of Ka'b Al-Ahbar:

"Do not be satisfied that people do no harm to others. They should try to assist one another. It could be that the person who pays Zakat should do more. He should assist his neighbors and Muslim brothers and be generous to his relatives."

Ka'b Al-Ahbar said:

"Whoever performs his duty would be free of any other additional charitable spending."

Abu Dharr immediately took his cane and hit Ka'b on the neck injuring him and said: "Son of a Jewish lady, are you trying to teach us our religion?"

With such a firmness in religion which made Abu Dharr hit and injure Ka'b (who was highly respected by 'Umar and 'Uthman) because he tried to give a verdict in the Islamic religion, it is inconceivable that Abu Dharr would learn from the imaginary Ibn Saba, who never met 'Uthman or any other caliph before him.

The dividers of Muslims do not hesitate to attack Abu Dharr and Ammar by saying that they were affected by Ibn Saba. However, we should not forget that by their attacking two prominent companions, they actually are attacking the Messenger of God who attested to their purity and righteousness.

Ibn Majah, in his authentic Sunan, reported that the Messenger of God said:

"Certainly Allah commanded me to love four persons and informed me that He loves them."

The companions asked the Prophet:

"Messenger of God, who are these four persons?"

The Prophet said:

"Ali is from them (repeating that three times), Abu Dharr, Salman, and Al-Miqdad." (part 1, page 52, hadith No.149)

Al-Tirmidhi, in his authentic Sunan, reported that the Messenger said:

"Every prophet was given by God seven righteous companions. I was given fourteen righteous companions." He included in them Ammar and Al-Miqdad. (part 5, page 329, hadith 3877)

Al -Tirmidhi also reported that the Prophet said:

"Heaven has not shaded, nor has the earth carried a truer person than Abu Dharr. He walks on earth with the immaterialistic attitude of Jesus, son of Mary." (part 5, page 334, hadith 3889)

Ibn Majah, in his authentic Sunan, reported that Imam Ali said: "I was sitting in the house of the Prophet and Ammar asked to see him. The Prophet said 'Welcome the good and the purified.'"

Ibn Majah also reported that 'A'ishah reported that the Messenger of God said "Whenever Ammar is given two alternatives, he always chooses the most righteous of the two."

Al-Tirmidhi, in his authentic Sunan, reported that the Messenger of God witnessed Ammar and his two parents tortured in Mecca. The Prophet said to them:

"Members of Yasir's family, be patient. Your destination is paradise. (part 5, page 233)

Thus, Ammar and his parents were the first people to be declared by the Prophet to be dwellers of Paradise.

Here we should say: When a Muslim knows that the Prophet has commended these two important companions so highly, and if he is a believer in the truthfulness of Muhammad, he does not allow himself to insult these two companions. Such an insult discredits the Prophet.

We find that the hostility of Sayf Ibn 'Umar Al-Tamimi, who lived during the second century after the Prophet, and the hostility of his students towards the Shi'ites motivated them to spread cheap propaganda. Sayf knew that attributing the revolt against 'Uthman to the work of Ibn Saba contradicted known historical facts which show that the two companions,

Abu Dharr and Ammar, were opposed to 'Uthman 's ever coming to power. Because Sayf knew of their opposition to 'Uthman, he tried to smear their reputations by adding the names of the two prominent companions to the list of students of the imaginary Jew.

If Ibn Saba ever existed he, according to the tale of Sayf Ibn 'Umar, had declared his Islam after 'Uthman came to power. Abu Dharr and Ammar Ibn Yasir, on the other hand, had been opposed to 'Uthman's caliphate before he came to power. The two companions were followers of the Imam Ali. They were firm believers that he was appointed by the Prophet to be his successor.

Since this was their belief before Ibn Saba's existence, Sayf's story about their being influenced by Ibn Saba is unfounded and untrue.

Thus, in order to clear the third caliph from all the accusations pertaining to his ill-management of the Islamic treasury, Sayf accused the revolters of being students of Ibn Saba. He then completed his story by adding the two companions to the class of Ibn Saba's students, intentionally overlooking the fact that the two companions belong to the first successful class of the school of the Prophet Muhammad. They were among the important companions who were honored by the Prophet.

In the end, Sayf was led by his untrue story to reject the testimony of the Prophet. By this, Sayf had disproved his whole tale.

Who is Sayf Ibn 'Umar?

The books that deal with the reporters of hadiths inform us that Sayf was a well-known liar.

Ibn Ma'in (died in 233 AH) said: Sayf is weak.

Abu Hatim (died in 277 AH) said: Sayf's hadith is rejected.

Al-Nisa'i (died in 303 AH) said: Sayf is weak.

Abu Dawud (died in 216 AH) said: Sayf is nothing. Some of his hadiths were conveyed and the majority of them are denied.

Ibn Hibban said: Sayf attributed fabricated hadiths to good reporters. He was accused of being a heretic.

Al-Darqutni (died in 385 AH) said: Sayf is weak.

Al-Hakim Al-Nisaburi (died in 405 AH) said: Sayf is accused of being a heretic.

Ibn Abd Al-Barr (died in 462 AH) said in his writing abut Al-Qa'qa': Sayf reported that Al-Qa'qa' said: I attended the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

Ibn Abd Al-Barr also said: Ibn Abi Hatim said: Sayf is weak. Thus, what was conveyed of the presence of Al-Qa'qa' at the death of the Prophet is rejected.

Ibn Hajar (died in 850 AH) said: Sayf's hadith is weak.

Al-Suyuti (died in 900 AH) said after conveying a hadith: "Many reporters of this hadith are weak and the weakest among them is Sayf."

(Sayyid Murtada Al-’Askari, Abdullah Ibn Saba, pages 27-28)

I should mention that Al-’Askari had a very distinguished achievement. He proved beyond any doubt, in his book Abdullah Ibn Saba, that Ibn Saba never existed, and that he was invented by Sayf Ibn 'Umar.