: Dr. Hassan Najafi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Imam Ali
ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8


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

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8
visits: 10619
Download: 4597


Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 30 /
  • Next
  • End
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 10619 / Download: 4597
Size Size Size


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


A Victim Lost In Saqifah

Vol. 2






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


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



Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran

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

www.ansariyan.org & www.ansariyan.net


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


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


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


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:


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.”


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.”!