Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

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

[263]

It is surprising that the writer of the article has no knowledge of companions with regard to facts and reality of matters and opinion of Imams about battles. This analysis is not based on authentic information but on probability and likelihood of participation of companions. This point is not noted.

Therefore if this probability is not accepted, it cannot be a confirmation of battles. Supposing if companions of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) attended on approval of Ali himself and were under no pressure, it is still not a ground to prove Imam Ali’s (a.s.) positive outlook.

While it can be said that they might have taken part on ground of other productive reasons so this cannot be a proof of their approval. It could be that the presence of Imam’s friends could be a restriction for Caliph’s soldiers from plundering and pillaging conquered regions.

Now we would like to ask: what is the reason that all co-operations are confined to supporting their battles. Why they have simply passed by all reasons and causes?

If we accept positive outlook of Ali to battles, it will contradict his statement:

“A Muslim should not go to a holy war in company of one who has no belief in God’s command and does not carry God’s orders with regard to spoils of war.

If at all he goes and is killed, he has helped him in usurping our rights and shedding our blood. His death is a pagan’s death.”[264]

Are Battles of Caliphs Worth Defending?

He who foments this conjecture while defending battles of Caliphs raises a question and reminds us the presence of Khalid bin Waleed among commanders of combat:

“What can you say about the appointment of this same Khalid bin Waleed by the Prophet himself?”[265]

Then he gives examples of his command in the days of Prophet[266] by way of defending the record of Islamic army and Caliph’s battles. He writes:

“Actions of Muslims in battles and victories are well worth defending and their trifle mistakes can be overlooked. Such things are common in other places too. So instead of justifying piece by piece we should defend them as a whole.”![267]

He continues:

“In wars of Prophet, Ali and Hasan also considerable shortcomings were seen on the part of the soldiers and men under their command.”![268]

By quoting some examples of this he derives following conclusions:

“A group of eight or twelve men under command of Prophet’s cousin went on a campaign. They committed crimes such as killing two men in a sacred month without orders of the chief command…

The commander himself did not obey orders of Prophet. He killed a number of innocent men, probably Muslims;

When soldiers under the command of the likes of Ali (a.s.) showed disobedience and looted the public treasury…

What can you expect from soldiers and commanders of Muslim armies that sometimes numbered 60,000?

…after all this can it still be said:

The fact is that the style of the battles of the Prophet was absolutely different from these territorial expansions of the Caliphs?[269]

As shall be seen in this section we shall try to prove that the style of battles of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) was different from the battles of Caliphs and the attitude of their system. There does not exist any similarity between them. Because if men like Khalid bin Waleed were sent in Caliph’s wars, of course the Prophet too had sent Khalid to command the battles. But their wrongs were not overlooked and justified in Prophet’s days. The same person in the time of Caliphs wronged openly.

There is one main difference between battles of Caliphs and those of Prophet. It was divine permission. Caliphs did not have this. The Prophet, Ali and Hasan did not take a step without first getting God’s permission.

“On the basis of this those who have no permission from God regard themselves successors of Prophet. They are from viewpoint of Quran liars and most tyrannical of human beings. They deserve hardest punishments. Even if they stand at the Mihraab or sit on a pulpit inviting people to virtue, piety and God-worship. Or they might have fought pagans and expanded Islamic borders and brought territories under the banner of Quran.”[270]

Secondly:

Another thing that is overlooked in these exaggerations is that they have omitted to say anything about the reaction of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and the Holy Imams (a.s.) as what action they took when such heinous crimes were committed by their men. While in the case of the Caliphs we see that they took no action at all in response to the tyrannies committed by their men.

They have nicely quoted the incident of Khalid bin Waleed during the time of the Prophet how he wrought havoc on the Bani Jazima tribe[271] but the writer has conveniently forgotten to mention what the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) did in response to the misdoings of Khalid.

While historical testimonies show that when:

“News of Khalid’s crimes reached the Prophet, His Eminence was very angry and shocked. He raised his hands to the sky and said:

O, God! What Khalid has committed, I hate it and seek refuge with You from his doings. Khalid went to the Prophet and the Prophet was infuriated with him.

The Prophet immediately sent Ali to the tribe (victimized by Khalid) of Bani Jazima to compensate them their losses and pay blood money whatever they say to their satisfaction.

Prophet told Ali (a.s.): Go to Bani Jazima, make amends for acts of ignorance and compensate for what Khalid has committed.

Ali paid their blood money and compensated for what Khalid had destroyed or drawn from them by force. Then finally Ali asked them whether there was anything left uncompensated or any blood unpaid. They said no. But for sake of correctness, whatever money was left with Ali he gave it to them telling them that perhaps something might have been forgotten.

Then he returned to the Prophet and reported all he had done. The Prophet appreciated his performance much and said: I had not given the command to Khalid. I had sent him only to invite them to Islam.

Some narrations say that the Prophet raised his hand toward the sky and said three times:

O, God! I seek immunity with You from whatever Khalid has done.”[272]

Regretfully not only have they omitted this reaction of the Prophet we don’t understand why the writer has not mentioned all these details? The writer does not miss to mention any wrongs or crimes committed by cousin of the Prophet or soldiers of Ali. But he so easily missed to write about the reactions of Prophet or Ali to these criminal actions, or what they did to redress and make amend for their crimes. Whether he mentions or misses, the truth finally does appear. The facts cannot be hidden for long as the clouds cannot hide the sun. He is only anxious to hold one dimension as if no other dimension exists. Only battles matter to him.

In the same way when he writes about the disobedience of soldiers under the command of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and their plunder of treasury, he has not mentioned that this took place in the absence of His Eminence (a.s.). When Amirul Momineen (a.s.) learnt of this he was shocked and punished the wrongdoers and announced his dissociation with this act of theirs. But the writer had not mentioned all this.[273]

Anyway he does not see such a big blunder committed by Khalid bin Waleed so he does not mention it. Let us remind him about Malik bin Nuwairah and his tribe which was the only quarter which did not acknowledge Abu Bakr’s rule as legitimate. So what did Khalid do?

When:

“Khalid killed Malik while he was saying that he was a Muslim. He kept Malik’s severed head under the cooking pot and the same night he slept with his widow...”[274]

After this terrible crime was committed by Khalid - commander and messenger of the First Caliph;

Abu Bakr said: “I will not stone him. He did Ijtihaad and made a mistake…I shall not sheathe the sword that God has drawn out.[275] ”[276]

Although the reaction of the First Caliph in this regard was not limited to this, but as Tabari writes:

“Abu Bakr never punished any of his officers and soldiers. As if in his policy he did not believe in imposing any penalties on his officers and soldiers.”[277]

The Second Caliph also adopted the same policy with regard to his courtiers, friends, servants, associates and those who were around him. Umar too never punished any religious transgression. One instance is that of Mughaira bin Shoba whom Umar had appointed as governor of Basrah province in Iraq. He committed adultery, which makes one liable for stoning according to Islamic legislation. Umar did not obey God’s order in punishing Mughaira; but did a most interesting thing.

Not only the Second Caliph arrested the fourth witness in the case of Mughaira he also subjected the remaining three witnesses to religious punishment at the hands of Mughaira himself. The punishment, which he was supposed to execute against Mughaira because he was the criminal in question.[278]

After these two cases how can we expect the Caliphs to punish their men who had been instrumental in earning such important victories?!

Perhaps the article writer regards as trifle and frivolous and worth being overlooked even the crime that Khalid committed in the name of Islam and Islamic government with regard to Malik bin Nuwairah and his wife![279]

But the Prophet never defended his relatives or staff or anyone associated to him in event of their being wrong or having done a wrong. He held them responsible for their mistakes; and imposed upon them punishment relative to that crime or crimes. But did the First and Second Caliph who were sitting in place of Prophet and were supposed to be in track of Prophet and tread the very path of the Prophet also do this? No. Rather they tried all means to cover the mistakes of their men and it also seen that:

Such crimes flourished because of support of Caliphs. If government officials become criminals and government was to turn a blind eye upon their crimes who remains there to check them?! Though these men had committed the most horrible crimes!!

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

The last point worth noting at the end of the discussion regarding participation of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in the government of the Caliphs is that in some instances the policy of the Caliphal regime was such that it should in any way compel His Eminence (a.s.) to take some steps; for example one case of applying force to enable strengthening of the foundation of Caliphate was as follows:

“Giving importance to congregation prayers and denouncing and even tagging those who do not attend their congregation as apostates.

Traditions censuring non-attendance of congregation leading to disunity of Muslims were emphasized. Necessity of being in the congregation as a right of the leadership of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) or the Imam was applied to themselves and even traditions in this regard were fabricated...”[280]

In such circumstances, not only the absence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in such customs would have given excuse to the regime to suppress him further;[281] but more than that it would have destroyed all chances of Imam’s intervention in affairs of the regime aimed at guarding the religion of Islam.

While the Imam (a.s.) was not in pursuit of such a kind of seclusion from Islamic society.

On the basis of this as has been proved so far there does not exist any evidence that some instances of Imam’s help and advice denote similarity of his aims with the Caliphs. Rather if we pay attention to the narrations we find that there is a wide gulf of difference between the policy aims of both the parties.

Such that they could be considered to be fundamental differences:

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) never allowed that his attitudes be interpreted to be in favor of Caliphate and behavior of the Caliphs or that they may get an opportunity to take advantage of his attitude to help their deviated aims.

What the Imam (a.s.) was in pursuit of is completely different to what the Caliphal regime aimed in obtaining his help and support.

In spite of the fact that wrong interpretations and analyses are propagated to the contrary.

Thus they claim:

“Other notable example of co-operation of Ali (a.s.) is his participation in congregational prayers led by Abu Bakr.”![282]

“On the basis of statements of modern Shia scholars like Dr. Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Hujjati, Amirul Momineen (a.s.)…participated in their congregation prayers so much that people never noticed his absence in the society. And never imagined that Amirul Momineen Ali was heading in another direction! And that he had severed connection with the society ruled by the Caliphs.”![283]

Although there is another analysis regarding this that in no way talks of any special meaning that could be derived from these actions of Imam (a.s.) because it is believed that:

“In such circumstances going to the Masjid and being present there… was ordinary matter.”[284]

This analysis also ultimately does not consider these steps to be construed as support to the Caliphs and their behavior.

“Presence of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in their gatherings was not voluntary and willful. His Eminence spent most of his time in the Prophet’s mosque and the same presence was followed by his presence in their assemblies.

On the basis of this His Eminence did not go there especially to attend their gatherings.”

Moreover, even if he attended their gatherings with intent it was with the purpose of forbidding evil, because they used to refer to His Eminence in many issues.[285]

On the basis of this a correct attitude and a firm connection with affairs of religion were the factors of his presence in their gatherings.”[286]

Historical documents and sources show that after Abu Bakr emerged from three-day seclusion[287] there ensued another debate and discussion at the end of which Amirul Momineen (a.s.) said in reply to another invitation of his associates:

“Then by Allah I did not enter the Masjid except like brother Moosa and Haroon when his companions said to him: go therefore you and your Lord, then fight you both, surely we will here sit down.[288]

And by Allah I do not enter except for the Ziarat of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) or to decide a case…”[289]

This narration clearly shows the limited aims of the presence of His Eminence (a.s.) in the Masjid.

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

Ustad Sayyid Ali Husaini Milani, in this respect has this to say:

“Regarding presence of Imam Ali (a.s.) in Prayers of Caliphs this much can be said: Although it is well-rumored there is no basis to it. There are many matters and subjects, sometimes new and interesting - but without a root or a base to it. Although some have taken for granted these things as sure and certain, but we inspite of our search do not find any documentary proof to it. What document or evidence, valid or otherwise exists to establish that Ali was always present in their prayers?

The only thing that exists is the material written by Abu Saad Samani in his book Al-Ansaab that can be regarded as a miracle of Ali with regard to exposing scandals of opponents. We have narrated the case earlier.

The case in question might have occurred earlier to Ali’s acknowledgment to Abu Bakr’s authority. Or his (Ali’s) dissidence with Caliphs should have been already known to public. Else there seems no ground for their decision to kill Imam Ali (a.s.).”[290]

The author in another place referring to the actual case says:

“So far we have not found any creditable source to bring this fact home to us that Imam Ali (a.s.) was obliged to be present in Prayers of Abu Bakr or someone else. On the basis of what Samani’s book[291] says:

Ali was present in Prayers of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had issued orders to Khalid earlier to kill Ali. Abu Bakr was still in Prayers he spoke to Khalid not to do what he had asked him to do.

Of course speaking during Prayer invalidates it, but Abu Bakr regardless to this fact spoke. Because Samani’s is not a book of traditions to be particular for creditability.

And it is the will of God that this case reached to our knowledge although other authors tried to hide it.”[292]

Deviation in Narration from Shia Sources

It won’t be out of place to remind that in order to prove good relations between Amirul Momineen (a.s.) and Caliphs they bring two narrations from books of Shia scholars and present them under the title: ‘Prayers with Caliphs’…

“Shaykh Hurr Amili writes in Wasaelush Shia, Kitabus Salaat, Pg. 534 that Imam (a.s.) says: The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) established relation with the Caliphs and Ali (a.s.) performed Prayers behind them.

The great Shia scholar, Late Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin, writes in Answers to issues of Moosa Jarulla:

Prayer of Ali behind Abu Bakr and Umar was not a dissimulation. An Infallible Imam cannot worship Allah on a basis of dissimulation. On the other hand a Shia can pray behind a Sunni. His Prayers is correct - not wrong.”![293]

In reply to this objection first we investigate the narration of Wasaelush Shia and make three notable points:

Point One

The statement that: The Prophet married two daughters of Caliphs and Ali prayed behind them is silent about the cause and description of how this was done. To find the conditions or circumstances governing these attitudes it is enough to look at titles under which Shia scholars have narrated the incidents.

Shaykh Hurr Amili has classified according to his own intelligence and understanding. In fact, the titles chosen by him show his insight in relation to contents of narrations.

It is interesting that the late Shaykh in his book mentions them under the heading: ‘Chapter of appreciability of attending Congregation Prayers in dissimulation behind one who is not qualified to lead prayers and standing with him in the first row’.

In the same way this narration is mentioned in Biharul Anwar[294] and Mustadrak al-Wasael[295] under following chapters:

Chapter of marriage of polytheists, infidels and Ahle Bayt-haters.

Chapter of lawfulness of marrying the deprived, those who are doubtful but show themselves to be Muslims and detestability of giving a Shia lady to them in marriage.

Result drawn from contemplating on these headings:

Firstly: The Imam (leader) of prayers in these narrations is not eligible to be followed, i.e. to pray behind him. Besides, from the angle of jurisprudence too he is not fit to the office of leading congregation prayers. He is neither a just man nor conditions in him qualify him to lead prayers for a congregation - no matter, small or large. In other words, the Imam of prayers is impaired with his followers of prayers. As such, to pray behind such a man can only be possible in dissimulation and the reward mentioned for this act is like the value of dissimulation and it has no connection with the leader of prayer.

Secondly: Narrators who have quoted these narrations in the section related to ‘The Prophet married’ in the discussion of marriage, have clearly kept veiled the entity and personality of wife and Imam of prayers. This reflects the conditions prevalent in society, which necessitated dissimulation.

Point Two

To understand a part of a narration we cannot ignore the wordings ahead or behind which would result in making the narration itself deficient.

Such a look would end in a contradictory comprehension in relation to its real meaning. Therefore we write a full extract from, Wasaelush Shia (the Aal al-Bait Print). The narration runs as follows:

“Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa, in his miscellaneous reports from Uthman bin Isa from Samma that he said:[296] I asked him about their marriages and prayers behind them. He said: This is a difficult thing. You cannot do that. The Prophet married and Ali prayed behind them.”[297]

In the first part we read the tradition:

“It is a difficult thing that you are asked to do and you cannot cut off relations with them and are compelled to do it.”

This shows there was compulsion and coercion. One is forced to maintain relations with the opponents.

As if the main thing is to keep away but under compulsion one is to remain with them.

Point Three

If we ignore the beginning of this narration and suffice on the part, we conclude that the narration is silent with regard to conditions. To learn about the conditions prevailing at that time we have to seek some other report similar to these narrations.

This tradition is known as the ninth tradition and exists in Wasaelush Shia in the following wordings:

“Ali bin Ja’far says in his book narrating from his brother, Moosa bin Ja’far, that Hasan and Husain prayed behind Marwan and we prayed along with them.”[298]

Attention is required here. In the contents it is not clear whether Hasan and Husain, although praying in a group, prayed individually or prayed following the leader of prayers; i.e. Marwan. The contents do not disclose whether Ali too prayed with them. Also not obvious in the contents is whether Hasan and Husain prayed in dissimulation or what the conditions were for their praying. However in the contents there arise great many questions.

Therefore we must search for narrations, which could open doors for us to see prayers, which our Imams performed with opponents and adversaries.

A salient difference exists between congregation prayers of Shias and other than Shia. The leaders of prayers (Imam of congregation) in Shia must be a just man, i.e. a man of probity and piety, virtue and having justice. This clearly proves that if a Shia prays behind an opponent of Shia faith, it does not mean that he has paid allegiance to him, his opinion, his school or his belief, because in this instance the condition of justice is cancelled.

Alongside this group of narrations, there are also traditions that clarify the matter further as follows:

“Ja’far bin Muhammad narrates from his father that Hasan and Husain used to recite the opening chapter and other chapter when they prayed behind Imam of prayers.”[299]

This narration in fact tells us how the Infallible Imams prayed behind their opponents. This not only explains the method of prayers of Hasan and Husain (a.s.) in the narration about congregation prayer under the leadership of Marwan, it also tells us about the way Amirul Momineen (a.s.) prayed behind the Caliphs.

On the other hand Allamah Majlisi has this to say under the explanation of these narrations, which is worth nothing:

“When Imams prayed behind the leaders of tyranny they used to pray under dissimulation and they did not make an intention of following them. They used to recite as if independently; reciting the Surah Hamd and another Surah themselves.

On the other hand it has been much stressed to attend congregation prayers. There are also traditions in this respect. It becomes compulsory in time of dissimulation.

But it is recommended that if possible one should pray at home and then join them in congregation and pray with them. And if not then it is obligatory to recite the opening chapter and another Surah oneself. And according to well known view in their leadership Qiraat is not cancelled. Rather in the book of Muntaha it is mentioned that: We do not have an opposing view in this matter, and in these prayers it is not required to recite the Hamd and Surah loudly and even if it is not possible to recite the Surah only Hamd is sufficient; although in my view it is obligatory to recite the Surah also and apparently in this matter there is no difference of opinions. If the Imam of congregation goes into Ruku (kneeling) before finishing the chapter he can finish the chapter in Ruku. Some say that reciting the Hamd and Surah is exempted in helplessness. In the same way in Tahzeeb this absolute view is mentioned and that this same prayer is valid. It is even said that: If one could not catch them in reciting the chapter, he can leave it altogether and join them in Ruku, and his prayer will be correct but it is precautionary to later repeat even the Prayer in which one has recited Hamd and Surah in his heart, under dissimulation.”

The message of this outlook means to say the view of all jurisprudents of Imamiyah sect is at parity. From many aspects it is in the category of response given by Allamah Sharafuddin in his Answer to the Problems of Jarallah. We quote the actual text from his book. In the meantime we must point out that Bi-Aazaar Shirazi has clearly and openly distorted the text. The facts and realities are sacrificed for the sake of so-called unity. It reflects a criminal tendency to distort authentic texts of well-known scholars of Imamiyah sect for their own benefits and ends.

According to the extract taken from his book of Answer to the Problems of Jarallah, Allamah Sharafuddin believes:

“Dissimulation in worship acts is that the Imam performs an action without intention that it be for proximity to God. It is only based on fear of a tyrant ruler.

And dissimulation in propagation of religion is that the Imam attributes a verdict to the Prophet while in fact, it is not from him. Although it is clear that dissimulation is never practiced by an Infallible Imam. And to consider narrations and worship acts of Imam as being dissimulation is to ridicule his infallibility and honesty.”[300]

In other words, Moosa Jarullah from this statement intends to inject the readers mind with belief that dissimulation is a possibility for an Imam that enables him the performance of a thing not for God’s sake but to find a scapegoat from detrimental surrounding imposed by a tyrant. In fact, it does not befit the Imam to stoop to such a category. If we accept this we have to deny his status of being infallible, which is irrecusable.

Jarallah after this marginal introduction in which he sets dissimulation to face infallibility of Imam prepares the minds of the readers to accept Imam’s actions on the basis of dissimulation proceeds further to say:

Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin (q.s.) says in response to these claims:

“Ali, peace be upon him and his sons, was punctual to perform prayers in their early hours. He was particular to perform prayers in congregation following the three Caliphs. He did this for the sake of God. He also prayed Friday prayers behind all three Caliphs seeking God’s satisfaction. His prayers were on the ground of his virtue and piety.”[301]

By this Jarallah aims to secure credibility and validity for Caliphs. He wants to establish legitimacy of their Caliphate because Ali prayed behind them. So they were men of justice and moral.

Jarallah represents dissimulation as an act of show and a trick. So considers prayers of Imam outside circle of worship and bereft of sincere intention to seek nearness to God. On the other hand he refers to prayers of Ali, which he performed behind three Caliphs as remote from dissimulation to establish his own motives and aims.

Allamah Sayyid Abdul Husain Sharafuddin against such propaganda says:

“I said: No, never. Ali prayed only to seek nearness with God. He prayed to impart what God has obliged him to do. His prayer behind them was only with aim to please God. We prayed following prayers of Imam and we sought nearness with God. We too have prayed several times behind Sunni Imam of prayers being too sincere to God. This is allowed in faith of Ahle Bayt. The worshiper, though behind a Sunni, obtains the reward as he does while praying behind a Shia. One who knows our faith, is aware of the condition of justice for the leader of prayers. On the basis of this following a sinner and ignorant Shia was not allowed while these conditions do not exist for the leader of congregation in Sunni sect and they are allowed to follow anyone.”[302]

From the comments of Sharafuddin, we discover that he has corrected the specifications of dissimulation given by Jarallah. In the second place he (Sharafuddin) has explained dissimulation within domain of worship - and not as Jarallah describes it.

According to Sharafuddin, the act of dissimulation represents God’s command within teaching of faith. Sharafuddin regards dissimulation a means of proximity to God. As such he totally rejects the opinion of Jarallah with regard to dissimulation.

Finally, Sharafuddin impedes the way paved by Jarallah to benefit from dissimulation to gain legitimacy and legality for Caliphs. The man who leads prayers in Shia school must be just and of good reputation. This condition invalidates the endeavor of Jarallah. The leader of Prayer must not be profane or a man of no respect among the people. We shall deal with this subject in detail as “Justice is not a condition for a man who leads prayers in other than Shia sect.”

He has clearly displayed the worth of prayer behind a Shia and behind a Sunni individual (or Caliphs). The justice of Caliphs or they being men of justice and piety he puts to question and repudiates this quality in them. In the light of this description the reader becomes attentive that the act of Imam Ali (a.s.) and his followers, Shias, does not give any support to them nor do they agree with them. Their dissidence is already concealed in their behavior.

In any case, firstly the response of Sharafuddin to the query of Jarallah is not personal inclination. It reflects the conditions prevalent in society. The direction of thought is an element at a zenith that cannot be neglected but necessarily to conceive the entailing developments.

Secondly: This answer of Sharafuddin refutes the conjecture, which Jarallah disseminates and not that it is to censure deviation of a tradition or taking a part of it for own benefit as it does not need an answer because later the truth is bound to become known.

Because such arrangement of texts is bound to put doubts in the minds of readers with regard to the behavior of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) this group is more dangerous than that of unity-seekers. It is thus said:

“…His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was always with our chief, Abu Bakr and was present in all prayers behind him.”[303]

“Ali (a.s.) himself also joined in Prayer with the Righteous Caliphs.”[304]

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

What conjectures are presented in this regard?

The last set of conjectures of unity-seekers with regard to relations between Caliphs and Imam Ali (a.s.) targets good relations between the rulers and the House of the Prophet. They wish to establish that there existed good terms between Caliphs and the Prophet’s family.

These conjectures can be divided into two groups.

Group One:

Conjectures are put into circulation to prove existence of good relations. But no historical evidence is presented. A general package of conjectures is set in the course of a rumor which says there existed good relations but does not show a proof.

Group Two:

Conjectures that propagate existence of good relations on the basis of some fixed and widely known historical evidences or events.

So we shall take up the first group in brief and come down to the second group in our analysis and also refute some conjectures propagated in this group:

Generally to prove that there existed good and friendly relations between the three Caliphs and the House of the Prophet statements are issued as follows:

“What is fixed and settled is that all companions especially the Righteous Caliphs behaved with each other like brothers….”![305]

“For 23 years in the lifetime of Prophet and 25 years after passing away of Prophet, Ali had friendly relations with Caliphs. He used to visit them in their houses and had family ties with them...”[306]

“Whether in the lifetime of the Prophet or after his death, Ali used to meet and visit the three Caliphs. He had contacts with them and family relations with them.”[307]

To analyse this claim we must first see individually the relations of each Caliph with the House of Divine Revelation during the lifetime and after passing away of Prophet.

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

In this field, we see evidence:

“Abu Bakr Siddiq entertained a particular affection and a deep sincerity towards the family and relatives of Prophet.”[308]

To scrutinize this claim we must go back to the days the Prophet lived.

“If it is correct to say that when the Prophet was alive, there existed two political trends among the Muhajireen. Those who were after Caliphate did not have good relations with Ali. Since those days, the two old men - Abu Bakr and Umar - were not friendly with Ali. In biographical narrations there is no mention of any open enmity. Likewise, there is no mention to prove friendly relations between them and Ali.

Ayesha herself has confessed her enmity with Ali even in the lifetime of the Prophet. This could be a proof of enmity of the house of Abu Bakr with Ali - if Ayesha’s words are taken into consideration.

When Fatima died all the widows of the Prophet joined the mourning ceremonies of Bani Hashim, but Ayesha did not attend under excuse of illness. It is narrated from Ali that Ayesha even expressed her happiness at Fatima’s death.

Anyway, immediately after Abu Bakr became the Caliph the insistence of the Imam to prove his rights with relation to Caliphate became a reason for difficulty between their relations.”[309]

Perhaps the only memory of friendly relation with Abu Bakr could be this:

“Abu Bakr approached the Prophet to seek Fatima’s hand for Ali in marriage. Then the Prophet gives him the assignment to go to the market and buy for Fatima the dowry (that is the things needed for day-to-day life).”![310]

“Abu Bakr approached the Prophet to seek Fatima’s hand for Ali in marriage. Then the Prophet gives him the assignment to go to the market and buy for Fatima the dowry (that is the things needed for day-to-day life)… Such relations or such services rendered were a common thing among companions of Prophet. Such services helped in bringing persons closer and making their friendship deeper.”![311]

In reply we say:

“Firstly: It was the second year of Hijra when Ali married Hazrat Fatima (a.s.). So this is far behind the developments of Saqifah and other events pertaining to Caliphate. As such, the claim is absolutely wrong.

Secondly: With regard to marriage of Ali and Zahra, Sunni scholars have written from reliable sources that the Prophet said: Indeed, the Almighty Allah has commanded me to give my daughter, Fatima in marriage to Ali (a.s.).

It is when the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) had separately gone to him for the hand of Fatima for themselves and got a negative reply…with this detail that in the matter of this marriage that is directly commanded by God Almighty and that also after Abu Bakr and Umar both has been disappointed in their efforts to get the hand of Fatima (s.a.). You wonder whether these two persons or others had design that it should happen or not?”[312]

Some Shia sources narrate the development of seeking Zahra’s hand from the Prophet by those two as follows:

“One day Abu Bakr, Umar and Saad bin Maaz were sitting in the mosque of the Prophet. The conversation turned to the marriage of the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima (s.a.). Abu Bakr told Umar and Saad bin Maaz: Get up. Let us go to Ali and ask him to go to the Prophet to seek Zahra’s hand in marriage. If he is hindered by impecunious circumstances we will support him. So they managed to convince Ali to go…Abu Bakr and Umar sent His Eminence as a test[313] and themselves waited for him outside. When Ali came out, they asked: what is the news? His Eminence said: His Eminence, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) has married his daughter Fatima to me and told me that God has performed our marriage in heaven…when Abu Bakr and his companions heard the news they pretended to be happy…”[314]

Another case pertaining to the relations of Abu Bakr with Amirul Momineen (a.s.) goes back to the time of Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Yathrib and their halt at Quba; at that time:

“Abu Bakr insisted that they enter Medina as soon as possible but the Prophet said: I will not enter Medina unless my brother, I mean, the son of my mother, Ali and my daughter Fatima come and join me. So Abu Bakr went alone to Medina in Ali’s jealousy.”[315]

Historical sources mention that:

“The Prophet stayed in Quba for fifteen days until Ali arrived.

Abu Bakr told the Prophet: Ali may not come for a month! People of Medina are waiting for you!

The Prophet said: No, it is not so. He will come soon. I too shall not move unless my cousin, my brother, the dearest one among my family and one who risked his life to save me, comes.

This answer of the Prophet pained Abu Bakr. He left the Prophet at Quba and went to one of his friends’ house in Sunha locality in Quba.”[316]

To summarize these events we can say:

“Relations between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Abu Bakr were cold and not worth mention.”[317]

Throughout the history of the Prophet, there is not one single incident to show existence of close, sincere, or intimate relations between Abu Bakr and the House of Divine Revelation. Now remains this claim to dwell upon:

“Warm and sincere relations existed between devotees of the Prophet during the rule of the First Caliph, the Siddiq Akbar…”[318]

To scrutinize this conjecture we have no way but to revert to the history of conduct and behavior of Abu Bakr toward the House of Divine Revelation. The scale of his affection and devotion to Ahle Bayt can be epitomized in one or two historical documents.[319]

“Balazari writes in Al-Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

When Ali refrained from paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, he ordered Umar to go and fetch Ali by utmost coercion and maximum pressure.

Ibne Abde Rabb writes in Al-Iqd al-Fareed:

Abu Bakr assigned Umar bin Khattab to go and pull those (means Ali) out of their house and bring them to him. And he told him: If they do not come out, fight them.”[320]

Therefore it can be said:

Anyway, immediately after Abu Bakr became the Caliph and the insistence of the Imam to prove his rights with relation to Caliphate became a reason for difficulty between their relations.

Attack on Fatima’s house, Fatima’s anger upon them, absence of permission for Abu Bakr and Umar to attend Fatima’s burial deepened the differences.”[321]

On the basis of this there never existed good relations during the days of the Prophet but immediately after Abu Bakr becoming the first Caliph, harsh and impolite relations started hurting the House where once descended angels and divine revelations. So now how can one say:

“Can one who has such intentions and beliefs about Zahra usurp her rights?”[322]

These conjectures are answered by History very clearly:

When Abu Bakr confiscated Fadak ignoring that it was personal property of Fatima and ignoring that it had been presented to Fatima by her father - the Prophet, Fatima demanded her right. He demanded witnesses to prove her claim. By so doing so he reflected that he had no belief in the Book of God - Quran in which the verse of purity clearly attests the impeccability and infallibility of Fatima and her sons - that is Ahle Bayt. Then he rejected the witnesses. It was a plot to deprive her of her own wealth and property. It is clear that he did not want to give back Fadak to her as he did not relinquish the office of Caliphate to Ali. Ali comes forward in defense of Fatima, but Abu Bakr remains adamant. There is exchange of words between Imam Ali (a.s.) and Abu Bakr.

“The Imam after saying this goes home with a heavy heart. A din of voices fills the air. People among themselves say Ali is right. Fatima is right. It is their right.

At that moment Abu Bakr goes to the pulpit and in order to silence the people says: O you people! What is this clamor for? You lend ear to everyone’s word. He (meaning Imam Ali) is a fox. The tail is his witness. He is after mischief. He himself is a malefic. He invites people to chaos. He seeks succor from a weak and takes help from women. He is like Umme Tahal, whose closest relatives were corrupt in her view.

How imperious was the Caliph at the power he held. How brazen faced he is and insulting to the Imam. We can gauge the manners and etiquette of the Caliph and how he debased one whose purity the verse of purification had acknowledged…

Ibne Abil Hadeed was very much surprised by all this insult done by the Caliph to Imam Ali (a.s.) and asked his teacher Ja’far bin Yahya Basri whether the Caliph had meant Ali? His teacher replied: Yes, my son. It is so. Ruling a government was in question…

Yes! The fact is that the Caliphs did not spare anything to debase Ahle Bayt (a.s.) to establish their rule.”[323]

Here it must be asked, how inspite of evidence of forgery and false claims they still say:

“In the times of Siddiq and Farooq the financial rights were paid in full to the family of the Prophet.”[324]

Historical Reminder

In the end it is observed that:

“Some supporters of Abu Bakr have fabricated reports[325] that Abu Bakr performed prayers on the coffin of Fatima. Fortunately, Ibne Hajar Asqalani has repudiated this as totally false.[326] ”[327]

Historical documents show that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were not present in Fatima’s burial. Thus Bukhari and Muslim (two famous hadith compilers of Ahle Sunnat) in their books, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, have clearly stated:

“When she died, her husband, Ali buried her at night and did not allow Abu Bakr to come and pray on her bier.”[328]

“When she died, her husband Ali bin Abi Talib, buried her in night and did not allow Abu Bakr to come. And Ali prayed on her bier.”[6329