Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english

A Victim Lost In Saqifah

Vol. 4

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

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AND RECORDED FOR THE PUBLISHER

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

Allegiance (Bay’at) of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) to Caliphs - contamination of Shia belief in Imamate 12

Section One: Allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Caliphs 13

Motive of this research 13

Discourse One: Absence of Ali’s Approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate 14

Historical documents 14

Conclusion 15

What is the Meaning of Silence? 15

It was bitter and painful 16

At what time, at which ground and under what conditions it took place 16

What is the Meaning of Allegiance? 16

Conclusion 17

Reminder 17

Comparison of silence to Bay’at 17

Conditions of achieving Bay’at 18

Discourse Two: Efforts to Obtain Imam Ali’s (a.s.) Bay’at after the Prophet’s Demise 20

First Category 20

Second Category 20

Third Category 20

Motive of Caliphate in taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) 20

A Look at Historical Proofs and Documents in Sunni Sources 21

Document No. 1 21

Document No. 2 21

Document No. 3 21

Document No. 4 21

Document No. 5 21

Document No. 6 22

Document No. 7 22

Document No. 8 22

Document No. 9 22

Document No. 10 22

Document No. 11 22

Document No. 12 23

Document No. 13 23

Conclusion 23

Illegitimacy of the very subject of Bay’at 23

Unwillingness of Bay’at-giver 23

Where did the efforts of Emigrants for taking forced Bay’at from Ali end? 24

Document No. 1 24

Document No. 2 24

Document No. 3 24

Document No. 4 24

Document No. 5 25

Document No. 6 25

Document No. 7 25

Document No. 8 26

Conclusion of the Eight Documents 26

Paying attention to: 26

Remark 27

Final conclusion about attack on Zahra’s house and efforts for taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) 27

Final Conclusion 28

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was always shown by Ali as not rightful 28

Discourse Three: Lack of Public Satisfaction from Abu Bakr’s Caliphate 29

Historical Documents 29

Another look at Historical Documents about Public Allegiance to Abu Bakr 30

Document No. 1 30

Document No. 2 30

Document No. 3 30

Document No. 4 30

Document No. 5 30

Document No. 6 31

Document No. 7 31

Document No. 8 31

Document No. 9 31

Document No. 10 31

Document No. 11 32

Discourse Four: Efforts to prove the Bay’at was of free choice after Zahra’s martyrdom 33

A suspicion 33

Cause of Zahra’s wrath against Abu Bakr 33

Motive of Sunnis in proving the occurrence of this Bay’at? 34

In how many ways Sunnis narrate this incident? 34

Criticism of Three Standards in Narrations of Sunni Sources Concerning willing Bay’at 35

First standard: Scrutiny into allegation of becoming Murtad of some Arabs 35

Allegation of Sunni Sect concerning the Bay’at having had taken place because of Murtads cannot be considered reliable 35

A) Investigation on reliability of this narration 35

Investigation of correctness and occurrence of the Battle of Abraq and events following it 36

Result 37

B) Analysis of proof of this narration 38

Continuation of scrutiny about authenticity of Abraq battle and events following it 38

For the first time issue of Murtad was shown as a great danger: 39

Result 39

Another look at the case of Apostasy of Arabs 40

Conclusion 41

Three main outcomes of scrutiny of the issue of Apostasy of Arabs 41

On the margins of analysis of issue of apostasy of Arabs 41

Last Reminder 42

Second standard: Scrutiny into narrations regarding the letter of Ali 43

A) A look at this letter 43

A - 1) Remark about Al-Gharaat 43

A - 2) Common points in Narrations of Ibne Qutaibah and Thaqafi 44

Pivot A 44

Pivot B 44

B) A glance at the incident mentioned in this letter 44

B - 1) Outcome 44

C) Investigation of credibility of sources mentioned in this letter 44

As for Al-Gharaat the most genuine and reputed source of this letter it must be said: 45

C - 1) Evidences that show deviation in Al-Gharaat 45

The signs of interpolation in Evidence 1 45

Signs of forgery in Evidence 2 (including 2 letters) 46

Evidence 2 - Letter One 46

Evidence 2 - Letter Two 46

C - 2) Results of the investigation of above evidences 47

D) A look towards inadvertency of Balazari to the contents of the letter of Ali 47

With reference to the above points following questions arise: 47

Reply 48

Reminder 48

Three prime results of scrutiny of Ali’s letter 48

Result 1 48

Result 2 49

Result 3 49

On the margin of scrutiny of the letter of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 49

Third standard: Scrutiny of Narrations about the secret meeting of Ali with Abu Bakr 49

Narration No. 1 49

Narration No. 2 50

Each points of this event is astonishing and indicates the falsehood of these two narrations 51

A) Excuse for compromise with Abu Bakr! 51

B) Testimony to the superiority of Abu Bakr! 51

C) Caliphate was a bounty that God gave to Abu Bakr! 51

D) Accepting that inheritance of Prophet was Sadaqah! 51

E) The Prophet preferred Abu Bakr to others! 51

Deviated Consequences of Forged Narrations 51

What does history say? 52

Document No. 1 53

Document No. 2 53

Document No. 3 53

Document No. 4 53

Final conclusion about Bay’at by choice as Sunnis claim 54

Section Two: Influence of Deviation on Shia Belief of Imamate 55

Discourse One: Imamate and Caliphate from Sunni Viewpoint 56

First Description 56

Second Description 56

Conclusion 57

Discourse Two: Sunni-inclined interpretations of Imamate and Wilayat 61

Imamate and Wilayat is in the meaning of rulership! 61

Wilayat and Imamate is rulership and an elected post 61

Only ways of installing Imamate and Wilayat (Rulership) are consultation and Bay’at 62

Consultation and Bay’at is source of legitimacy of Imamate and Wilayat 64

The situation of some endeavors is as follows: 65

The first stage 65

The second stage 65

Perverted Repercussions of this Conjecture on the subject of Alawi Government 66

First wrong result 66

Second wrong result 66

Third wrong result 66

Reminder 67

Explaining the position of Bay’at in the system of divinely appointed Imamate 67

END: Caution of Wilayat and warning of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) about the beginning of deviation in belief of Imamate 68

Notes 69

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.

Allegiance (Bay’at) of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) to Caliphs - contamination of Shia belief in Imamate

Section One: Allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Caliphs

Motive of this research

Ali’s Bay’at with Abu Bakr is repeatedly mentioned in various styles and used in different ways to bring out Abu Bakr’s Caliphate from its characteristic feature of usurpation that surrounds it.

So they claim:

“It is said that Ali was tied by a rope round his neck and his house was destroyed. I do not know such an Ali. He was not a man of such an insult. He wisely paid allegiance and remained firm on it indicating his satisfaction.”![1]

“This proves that Ali did not view their Caliphate illegitimate.”[2]

“After he (Ali) gave Bay’at. He even mended and dressed the shortcomings in Caliphs’ proceedings. This confirms the legitimacy of Caliphs.”[3]

“Ali has given Bay’at to both (Abu Bakr and Umar). Of course he has done this prudently.”[4]

“The behavior and conduct of Ali and his reverend sons towards Caliphs was such that it could be called an approval and pledge of allegiance.”[5]

Those who make the claims (that Ali gave allegiance to Abu Bakr) have an aim:

A) Ali’s acknowledgment to Abu Bakr serves an umbrella to them, covering illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Besides it supports their persistence in their design to prove Ali’s consent and concurrence.

B) To benefit from Ali’s acknowledgment by removing from the public mind suspicion of illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Besides, to pose it as a Caliphate having God’s pleasure. In other words, to provide a sanctity under shade of Ali’s allegiance.

Therefore we must go through these allegations thoroughly:

In the meantime we would like to scrutinize these two claims:

1) Claims that Ali’s Bay’at tantamount to public popularity of Abu Bakr’s rule.

2) Claims that acceptance of Abu Bakr’s rule proves Ali’s allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Therefore in this analysis we shall evaluate the sources claiming that Ali gave allegiance to Abu Bakr. They are as follows:

Source One: Divine legitimacy (Legitimacy granted by God)

Source Two: Public Popularity (Standard of public accord)

Source Three: Existence (A fact/occurrence)

We shall again thoroughly investigate historical documents related to these claims to find the extent of Ali’s approval to Abu Bakr’s rule.

Because the above subject has taken for granted that Ali in fact gave allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Accordingly we can evaluate Ali’s belief in legitimacy and popularity of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and thereby gauge its authenticity in the light of History.

Discourse One: Absence of Ali’s Approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

There is no doubt that if Abu Bakr’ Caliphate had been legitimate in the view of His Eminence, Ali in any of these aspects - legitimacy, popularity, entity - he would have never refrained from paying allegiance and would have never tried to overthrow it through armed uprising. So the fact is that there was no approval at all from the side of Ali (a.s.).[6]

Historical documents

Moosa bin Uqbah (d. 141) narrates from Ibne Shuhab Zuhri:

“Some Muhajireen were enraged about the allegiance of Abu Bakr, among them were Ali and Zubair…and they had weapons with them.”[7]

Ibne Mitham Bahrani (d. 679) narrates from the book, Waqatus Siffeen by Nasr bin Muzahim Minqari (d. 212) that Ali said:

“Had I found forty men of determination I would have fought.”[8]

Ibne Abil Hadeed Motazalli (d. 656) also has narrated the same words of Ali:

“Had I found forty men of determination!”[9]

After quoting these words in Waqatus Siffeen he writes:

“A large number of biographers have quoted this statement.”[10]

In the same way in his book he has quoted the text of letter Muawiyah had written to Ali in which he has quoted this statement of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.):

“Had I forty men of determination I would have fought them.”[11]

The firm determination of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to have an armed uprising was that when - due to some exigencies[12] - he became hopeless and confined himself to his house he remarked as follows:

“If I had not feared discord among Muslims and their going back to infidelity and not worried about the destruction of the religion of Islam I would have behaved with them in a different manner.”[13]

“And by Allah! If there had been no risk of discord among Muslims as a result of which they would have reverted to infidelity, we would have in every possible way tried to bring down the regime.”[14]

According to Shia sources the dissatisfaction of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was to such an extent that he did not accept it for even a moment; so how can it be possible that he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Thus he said:

“By God, if I had the number of supporters that Talut had or supporters the Prophet had in battle of Badr, and they were inimical to you - I would have fought you with sword till you returned to truth. The separation among you would have suited you best and most befitting to you.

O God judge between us with truth and You are the best of judges.

The narrator says: Then he left the mosque and passed through Baseer[15] where around thirty sheep were there. He pointed to the sheep and said: By God, if I had men of this number of sheep, sincere and true to God and His Prophet, I would have overthrown him from power.

By nightfall, three hundred and sixty persons gathered around him and pledged their support to him until death.

Ali asked them to come the next day to Ahjaaris Zait[16] with their heads shaved. Ali shaved his head. Among those three hundred and sixty came none except Abu Zar, Miqdad, Huzaifa bin Yamani, Ammar bin Yasir and Salman.

Then Ali raised his hands towards the sky and said:

If a covenant had not been taken from me by the Prophet I would have drowned the opponents in the gulf of their ambitions and brought down upon their heads fatal destructive lightning of death. Of course they will come to know soon.”[17]

Conclusion

Says Ibne Maytham Bahrani (d. 679):

“The event of Saqifah, occurrence of differences between companions and Ali’s refusal to pay allegiance is an evident fact which can neither be denied nor concealed. It is from here that eternal differences and rivalry among them followed. The truth is that rivalry remained fixed and alive between Ali and he that seized the Caliphate in his time. The tyranny that resulted is open and clear. It remains at constancy and morally it declares what happened.”[18]

Therefore it can be said:

Sayings and behavior of Ali towards Abu Bakr’s Caliphate indicate his harsh and serious opposition. This open opposition they claim to be his acceptance and approval of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

Ali’s strong resistance and refusal to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr finally resulted in those atrocities. The armed attack on house of Divine Revelation, then their entrance into the House, the insults on Zahra, the only daughter of the Prophet, then beatings and physical hurt committed against her, then the miscarriage of her unborn child, Mohsin - what all this represents…?

Even when Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was disappointed of the possibility of armed uprising and possibility of overthrowing the tyrant rule of Abu Bakr, he still did not accept the validity of Abu Bakr’s regime.

It is natural that such denial can never be construed as his approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in any of the aspects we have stated above.

On the basis of this it can be said:

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) neither approved Abu Bakr’s Caliphate nor he accepted it.

As a result:

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, in his view, was illegal and usurped because it did not belong to him. Caliphate was his right according to Prophet’s declaration in Ghadeer. It was usurpation. It was not only illegitimate but even short of popularity and identity.

What is the Meaning of Silence?

As mentioned in first chapter of second volume of this book, Amirul Momineen (a.s.) due some exigencies, some of which we listed, changed his stance from planning an armed uprising into sitting quiet at home.

In other words, he became obliged to undergo those sore and bitter conditions prevalent at that time, such as:

A) To forego the armed uprising against Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and to ignore any preparations in that regard.

B) To avoid campaigning seriously and abstain from disclosing any confidential matters.

C) To let go without opposition anything having a bearing on Abu Bakr’s Caliphate, or anything in relation to it.

While enduring these things was so hard that in his own words it was: “…a thorn in my eyes and a bone in my throat…”[19]

It was bitter and painful.

On the basis of this requirement of the above matter, absence of confronting the rulers which is described as silence can in no way be interpreted to be approval of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in any of its aspects: legitimacy, popularity or factuality.

In the same way ‘acceptance of silence and giving up of armed uprising’ has no relation and necessity of his taking steps to his paying allegiance to Abu Bakr, though his silence is wrongly interpreted and it is claimed:

“Ali saw himself more deserving to Caliphate, but for the sake of the interests of Muslims he did Bay’at with Abu Bakr.”[20]

Now it should be asked:

At what time, at which ground and under what conditions it took place.

Can such acceptance fulfill the necessary requirement of granting legitimacy to the ruler?

Or because of difference between the meaning of silence and paying allegiance does there exist any bearing between the two? The sense and the application of the word “acknowledgment” or “paying allegiance” in such expressions is wrong.

What is the Meaning of Allegiance?

In order to understand the meaning of Bay’at (that is the matter they claim to have occurred between Ali and Abu Bakr) and to know why the regime was so much concerned about getting the Bay’at of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) let us study the following to get a compendious sense and a concise description of this word:

Ibne Khaldun (d. 808) writes in his book Muqaddima:

“To pay allegiance (Bay’at in Arabic) means a covenant, a fact that commits one to be obedient to the other. One who enters into Bay’at with the other (or an Amir, a master) surrenders to his view in relation to himself and Muslims. He has no say in affairs concerning him or others. In short, one resigns to other. This is the sense of Bay’at. After accomplishment of Bay’at, he must be resigned irrespective of his willingness or otherwise.

It was customary at the time of Bay’at that one laid his hand into the hand of Amir or Lord as a token of his submission to him.

This is the general sense and common meaning in religion and common parlance.”[21]

In the light of this and other several similar descriptions it can be said:

A) Individuals indicate obedience to one another by means of their actions and conduct. They show their resignation to his orders and authority which is called Bay’at.

Bay’at with Caliph means acknowledgement to his being a Caliph and obedience to his orders. This indicates acceptance of his Caliphate and rule.

B) Through Bay’at people leave their possibilities, properties and their social interests at the disposal of their leader or Imam or Caliph. By this means and method the leadership or Caliphate is established in society and attains a ground for its legitimacy. Those who enter into Bay’at are committed to honor the choice and opinion of the Bay’at taker.

C) Through their Bay’at people are committed to be loyal and devoted to the Bay’at-taker. They also are committed to provide possibilities to strengthen the stand of government and make its foundation stronger. All these activities are reflected in their Bay’at to the Caliph.

Conclusion

Bay’at is an act by which one’s support, consent to obedience, commitment of loyalty and sincerity and acceptance of his (the Bay’at-taker) power or office is expressed.

It is a means through which people display their approval and acknowledgement to the aforesaid items. It is a formal declaration.

Reminder

A) Those who believe in Ali’s Bay’at to Abu Bakr either do not speak with knowledge or use the word in its dictionary meaning to convey the above connotation.

B) There is a great difference in the meaning of silence and abandoning armed uprising. It is absolutely wrong as it is not possible at all to use the word Bay’at even for the sake of reference.

In other words, the term Bay’at carries a particular sense it cannot be used in places which do not fit its sense or do not fall within its range. The word silence is interpreted in a sense of Bay’at and then the very word of Bay’at is attributed to Ali that he performed Bay’at with Abu Bakr because he had maintained a long silence.

Comparison of silence to Bay’at

Three aspects of the topics:

A) Imam Ali’s (a.s.) untiring efforts to overthrow Abu Bakr’s Caliphate; his belief in overthrowing the regime - even after his getting disappointed that it would be fruitful and beneficial. Though he gave up hope of armed uprising he continued his efforts.

B) Imam Ali’s (a.s.) adamancy in his denial to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr until (according to Sunnis) firewood was gathered and Zahra’s house was set afire.

C) The accurate interpretation of Ali’s social and political stand that is regarded as silence:

What was forced upon Ali (a.s.) can be sketched as follows:

1 - Absence of effective efforts to have armed uprising against Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and his ignoring it. Since no necessary ground was available to him he had to accept this situation.

2 - He had to forsake stiff opposition and tough steps because of their evil results and unsuitable conditions.

3 - Absence of opposition from all sides to orders of the Caliph and all acts of the regime as a result of bad consequences and unfavorable conditions because of no general support or lack of consent of the society.

So it is clear how difficult it was to undergo such conditions in spite of one’s unwillingness. This is termed as silence with regard to Imam Ali’s (a.s.) political and social stands. He (Ali) adopted this policy; and this policy had no bearing on his Bay’at or no relation to it that it be construed as Bay’at to Abu Bakr. This silence did not bind Ali to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr.

Far before these developments,[22] His Eminence (a.s.) had occupied himself in collecting verses and chapters of Quran in his house. He had been disappointed of any possibility of bringing the downfall of illegitimate rule. The main setback was state of society, which was not yet ripe to foresee the dangers in store if the people betrayed him.

It is obvious that to yield to such conditions and arrange thereon the political and social stands of his own should not create any obligation to give his acceptance and approval to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate. Or that it could be used to prove that the Bay’at really took place.

Mere occurrence of something cannot be a proof of its legitimacy. To prove the establishment of Abu Bakr’s regime cannot be a proof that he had the allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.). Neither can his silence be construed as approval.

To accept a factual happening does not denote one is in agreement to it. So Ali’s silence does not call for Bay’at.

Conditions of achieving Bay’at

“Placing ones hand into that of other in Arab parlance is completion of a transaction.

But in Islam it is a sign of a covenant which means acknowledgement to one’s authority or superiority. It represents obedience of Bay’at giver to Bay’at taker and his submission to him.

The analysis of the word Bay’at in the days of the Prophet shows that it was based on three points:

1 - The Bay’at giver

2 - The Bay’at taker

3 - Commitment of obedience to rules of Bay’at

According to this order, the object of Bay’at must be clearly known and conceived because its performance is committed.

So according to traditions of Prophet, as a token of acceptance one puts his hand into the hand of Bay’at taker. Thus Bay’at is concluded.

So Bay’at takes to it a religious feature[23] and becomes a religious term.

But these days most Muslims do not know the conditions of getting Bay’at on religious basis in Islam. Therefore it is incumbent to explain that:

In Islam Bay’at is sought when the following three conditions exist:

1 - The Bay’at giver should have fitness and eligibility of Bay’at. He must be free and independent.

2 - The Bay’at taker should have fitness and eligibility to take Bay’at from him.

3 - Bay’at must be for a legitimate object and aim.

On the basis of this:

Bay’at must be concluded on the basis of willingness and inclination. Bay’at loses its authenticity and characteristic if it is obtained by force.

As such, if it is performed under coercion or tyranny it is illegitimate and invalid.

Bay’at is wrong and invalid if concluded with one who is a known sinner or if Bay’at will lead to disobedience to God or to commit a sinful act. In all these cases it has no validity.

So Bay’at is an Islamic term and Islam has framed its rules and regulations.

The above can be summed up as follows:

Bay’at in Arabic means giving hand into the hand of another as a token of completion of a transaction. In Islam it means that the Bay’at giver shall endeavor to perform obligations to the interest of Bay’at obtainer. If relative conditions do not exist, Islamic Bay’at cannot be accomplished.

Conditions of Bay’at are:

1 - Bay’at of a mad or an immature is not valid.

2 - Bay’at obtained by force and from an acknowledged sinner is not correct.

3 - Bay’at to perform things, which go against religion, is of no value.

Bay’at in the light of above is like a business deal. It takes place with mutual consent and agreement. It loses its strength if obtained by force or fraud.

Likewise, Bay’at could not be performed for sin or disobedience to God. Bay’at cannot be done with an open sinner.”[24]

Imam Ali (a.s.) on this basis has said:

“My Bay’at to them did not constitute any right for them as they had no right to take Bay’at and it does not represent my willingness or consent to them.”[25]

So according to the words of Ali, his Bay’at to Abu Bakr had no validity.

To understand still more accurately the above words we shall scrutinize historical documents related to their demand from Ali to give Bay’at. Then we shall see the result against the conditions of obtaining Bay’at.

Discourse Two: Efforts to Obtain Imam Ali’s (a.s.) Bay’at after the Prophet’s Demise

Narrations in Sunni sources about Bay’at taken from Imam Ali (a.s.) can be classified into three categories:

First Category

Narrations under this category indicate that Ali entered into Bay’at willingly and openly with Abu Bakr immediately after the latter got Caliphate.

Second Category

Narrations under this category indicate that Ali entered into Bay’at willingly and openly with Abu Bakr after six months.

Third Category

Narrations under this category indicate unsuccessful attempts of supporters of Caliph to obtain Bay’at from Imam Ali (a.s.) by force and compulsion.

Narrations under first and second categories are in contradiction to one another. Therefore they have neither credibility nor validity, hence they are discarded.[26]

On the basis of this there remain only narrations of third category that carry some weight and we shall investigate them thoroughly. These narrations are also mentioned in Shia sources hence we shall refer to them in this section.

In this section with reference to the book, al-Hujoom alal Baitul Fatima by Ustad Muhaqqiq Shaykh Abduz Zahra Mahdi we shall explain how the Caliph and his associates made efforts to compel Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to give allegiance to Abu Bakr and Ali’s persistent refusal to their demand to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. So that it becomes clear what value this Bay’at has.

Motive of Caliphate in taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)

Even though Amirul Momineen (a.s.) after trying to mobilize help for bringing down the regime retired dejected to his home the Caliphate system was not satisfied. They continued to make all efforts to extract allegiance from him at any cost. Silence of the Holy Imam (a.s.) and his disinclination to take up an armed campaign began to be construed as his approval or rather readiness to give allegiance.

So from this aspect they wanted him come to the Mosque at rate and lend legitimacy to their regime and that Bay’at may be taken from him for Abu Bakr.[27] And in this way by accepting the silence of His Eminence (a.s.) they may show that it was customary.

Perhaps they also wanted to eliminate Amirul Momineen (a.s.) under the pretext of his refusal to give Bay’at.

A Look at Historical Proofs and Documents in Sunni Sources

Waqidi (d. 207)

Document No. 1

“Ali and Zubair were enraged. They did not do Bay’at.

Umar shouted: Come out or we shall burn the house with you.

They still refused to come out. So he pulled both of them out by force and dragged them to Abu Bakr till they paid allegiance.”[28]

Some narrators of this report are:

Tabari Imami (4th century): Al-Mustarshid, Pg. 378

Ibne Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Ibne Tawoos (d. 664): Al-Taraif, Pgs. 238-239

Nasr bin Muzahim (d. 212)

Document No. 2

“Muawiyah wrote to Ali: Against all of them (means Caliphs) you committed tyranny (rebelled). This we came to know through your enraged looks, your words laced with scorn and rancor, sigh of your breast and unwillingness to co-operate with them. You were taken to each of them as a camel is dragged by its reins[29] till you paid allegiance while you hated.”[30]

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibne Athim Kufi (d. 314): Al-Futuh, Vol. 2, Pg. 578

Ibne Abde Rabb (d. 328): Al-Iqd al-Fareed, Vol. 4, Pgs. 308-309

Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413): Al-Fusool Al-Mukhtar, Pg. 287

Khateeb Khwarizmi (d. 568): Al-Manaqib, Pg. 175

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 15, Pg. 74 & 186

Qalaqshandi (d. 821): Subh al-Ashi, Vol. 1, Pg. 273

Document No. 3

“[His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) wrote in reply to Muawiyah:] I was dragged like a camel by its reins till I gave allegiance.”

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Razi (d. 406): Nahjul Balagha, Letter 28

Ibne Hamdoon (d. 562): Al-Tazkeratl Hamdonia, Vol. 7, Pg. 166

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 15, Pg. 183

Nuwairi (d. 737): Nihayatul Arab, Vol. 7, Pg. 236

Qalaqshandi (d. 821): Subh al-Ashi, Vol. 1, Pg. 276

Bawoni Shafei (d. 871): Jawahir al-Matalib, Vol. 1, Pg. 374

Document No. 4

“[Muawiyah wrote in reply to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr.]

Then the two (Abu Bakr and Umar) invited him (Ali) to their Bay’at. But he ignored and refused. So they designed great plots for him.”[31]

Some narrators of this report are:

Masoodi (d. 346): Muruj az-Zahab, Vol. 3, Pg. 12-13

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 3, Pg. 190

Ibne Qutaibah Dinawari (d. 276)

Document No. 5

“Ali’s refused to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr:

Umar said to him: you are not free unless you give Bay’at.

They pulled him out of the house and took him to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr said: Give the Bay’at:

Ali said: What if I don’t?

They said: By God! We swear, we would cut off your neck.”[32]

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibne Athim Kufi (d. 314): Al-Futuh, Vol. 1, Pgs. 13-14

Ibne Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Matalib, Pgs. 138-139

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656): Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, Pgs. 11-12

Balazari (d. 279)

Document No. 6

“Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to Ali when the latter refused give allegiance telling him: bring him to me with utmost force.”[33]

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Murtuza (d. 436): Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 240

Shaykh Toosi (d. 460): Talkhees Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 76

Document No. 7

“Abu Bakr sent some people to Ali to take his Bay’at. But he did not give the Bay’at. Then Umar went to Ali carrying fire.”[34]

Some narrators of this report are:

Sayyid Murtuza (d. 436): Ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 241

Shaykh Toosi (d. 460): Talkhees ash-Shafi, Vol. 3, Pg. 76

Ibne Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Muhammad bin Jurair bin Yazid Tabari Shafei (d. 310)

Document No. 8

“Ali and Zubair did not give Bay’at. Umar went to them and brought them by force.[35]

Document No. 9

“Umar bin Khattab came to the house of Ali and said: By God, I will burn (it) over you, or you come out to give Bay’at”.[36]

Some narrators of these two reports are:

Ibne Shahar Aashob (d. 588): Mathalib, Pg. 419

Ibne Abde Rabb (d. 328)

Document No. 10

“Those who did not do Bay’at with Abu Bakr were Ali and...Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to pull them out of Fatima’s house. He enjoined Umar to fight them if they refused. Umar came to the house with fire to burn the house together with them.”[37]

Some narrators of this report are:

Ibne Tawoos (d. 664): Al-Tarayif, Pg. 239

Abul Fida (d. 732): Al-Mukhtasar Fil Akhbaar al-Bashar, Vol. 1, Pg. 156

Ibne Athir (d. 630)

Document No. 11

“And Ali and Bani Hashim refused to give Bay’at… then came to them Umar and took them to give Bay’at.”[38]

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656) narrates from Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323)

Document No. 12

“Then Umar entered and said to Ali: Get up and do Bay’at.

But he did not pay attention and did not come out from the house. Umar held him by his hand and again said: Get up. Ali again refused to get up. Umar held him by force and threw him. In the same way, he behaved with Zubair too. Then Khalid caught both of them. Umar and his men took them to Abu Bakr in a very bad manner.”[39]

Document No. 13

“Some Muhajireen were enraged…Ali and Zubair were also angry and they entered Fatima’s house. Umar came to them with his men…Then Umar pulled them out and took them forcibly to give Bay’at.”[40]

Conclusion

The most prominent conditions under which Bay’at was demanded from Amirul Momineen (a.s.) are Ali’s refusal to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr and the atrocious and inhumane behavior of Umar and his men for obtaining the Bay’at. Thus all Sunni sources have highlighted these points.

But the matter is that these two points have put a question mark on the validity of Abu Bakr’s Bay’at due to the following:

Illegitimacy of the very subject of Bay’at

The entity of Bay’at-taker was in a position of tyrant and usurper of another’s right.

Unwillingness of Bay’at-giver

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656) writes:

“Narrations about Saqifah are different and contradictory. But what Shias say and some traditionists have also narrated is as follows:

Ali refused to give Bay’at till it was taken by force.”[41]

As for Ali’s refusal to Bay’at that resulted in horrible way he was pulled out is mentioned in traditions and biographers have also recorded it.[42]

As for Jauhari’s saying in this regard, we have already said: Jauhari is a man of tradition. He is trustworthy and of confidence. Many others (trusted and reliable people) have also stated the incident.

Most traditionists have narrated that after the happenings of Saqifah Ali endured great many atrocities as he was taken against his will to enter into Bay’at with Abu Bakr. He shouted in protest. He called for help. He lastly gestured to the Prophet’s grave and said: Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.”[43]

It is interesting that in spite of historical documents they still claim:

“Whatever happened among Muslims in the early days of Islam, particularly after passing away of Prophet between Ali and companions of Prophet, was friendly and cordial type of dispute.”[44]

“Differences between companions of Prophet were internal differences but friendly…”[45]

Further, it is more surprising that when contemporary historians come across these historical documents they claim:

“These narrations are liable to suspicion and to more pondering. Some simple-minded people have launched these things in order to indicate that Imam Ali (a.s.) was victimized. On the other hand it is imaginable that Ali perhaps saw himself responsible towards those who were in the house. So he came out and went to Abu Bakr to avoid any danger to them.[46] ”![47]

Where did the efforts of Emigrants for taking forced Bay’at from Ali end?

Document No. 1

Ali bin Husain Masoodi (d. 346) quotes a document about Ali extending his hand to Abu Bakr.

He writes:

“They rushed to his house and attacked it and burned the door. They pulled him out by force.

They crushed the sacred person of Zahra behind the door and she miscarried the unborn child, Mohsin.

They took him (Ali) to give Bay’at but he refused.

They said: We shall kill you.

Ali said: If you kill me you would have killed a God’s servant and His Prophet’s brother.

They pulled his hand. His fist was closed. They tried to open his fist, but they could not.

Then touched Ali’s closed fist over Abu Bakr’s hand.”[48]

Document No. 2

Sayyid Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Ibrahim Hasani Zaidi (d. 352) quotes a document as follows:

“They told Ali (a.s.): Do Bay’at.

Ali said: What if I don’t?

They replied: We shall kill you - and then they pulled his hand.

He closed his fingers tight and raised his head towards the sky, saying: O God! Be a witness!

Then they touched his hand to Abu Bakr’s?”[49]

Document No. 3

Muhammad bin Masood Ayyashi (d. 320) after narrating the attack on Zahra’s house and pulling out of Ali for Bay’at of Abu Bakr[50] and the threats to kill him,[51] writes:

“Abbas heard the news and he ran out shouting: Leave my nephew. I will take from him Bay’at for you.

Then Abbas came forward, took Ali’s hand and put it over Abu Bakr’s hand. Then they let Ali (who was enraged) to go.”[52]

On the basis of this narration, in order to save Amirul Momineen (a.s.) Abbas took the hand of His Eminence (a.s.) and kept it on the hand of Abu Bakr.

Document No. 4

Allamah Majlisi (d. 1111) narrates similar to that which Tabarsi has mentioned in book Ihtijaaj.[53]

“Then he said: Get up! O Ibne Abi Talib and do Bay’at.

(Ali) asked: What if I don’t?

(Umar) said: If so by God, we shall kill you.

He (Ali) protested to them three times. Then he extended his hand while his fist was closed. Over his fist, Abu Bakr hit his hand. This was the Bay’at they could get from Ali but they were content at this much.

Before doing this Bay’at Ali shouted while the rope was round his neck:

Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.”[54]

In another document, which is very much similar to the above, the text runs thus:

“…Then he extended his hand without opening the fist. Abu Bakr hit over it by his hand. Abu Bakr was content at that. Then (Ali) went home.”[55]

Document No. 5

Sayyid Murtuza (d. 436) writes:

“Adi bin Hatim narrates: I was sitting with Abu Bakr when Ali was brought in.

Abu Bakr told Ali to do Bay’at.

Ali replied: What if I don’t?

Abu Bakr said to him: I will behead you.

Then Ali lifted his head towards sky and said: O God! Be witness! Then he extended his hand and gave Bay’at.”[56]

Document No. 6

Shaykh Ahmad Tabarsi (6th century) mentions a document as follows:

“Abu Bakr said to Qunfudh: If he (Ali) comes out, it is all right. If not, attack him. Again if he refuses to give allegiance, burn the house with its occupants.

Qunfudh set out with his associates as ordered, attacked the house without warning, entered it and put a black rope around Ali’ neck.

Then they took Ali to Abu Bakr. The black rope was around his neck. Umar was standing with a naked sword. Around Abu Bakr were sitting with his companions holding swords.

Umar threatened him and said: Do Bay’at.

Ali answered: What if I didn’t?

Umar answered: We shall kill you disrespectfully.

Then Ali before doing Bay’at shouted:[57] Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me.

Then he extended his hand and did Abu Bakr’s Bay’at.”[58]

Document No. 7

Tabari Imami (4th century) writes:

“A group was sent after Ali. They brought Ali with a rope around his neck.

Then they told him to do Bay’at.

He asked: What if I don’t?

They said: We shall kill you.

Ali said: Then you would have killed a servant of God and a brother of the Prophet.

They said: A servant of God, yes! But a brother of the Prophet, no!

The narrator says: On that day Ali returned without giving Bay’at.”[59]

How Sunnis narrate this event?

Document No. 8

Ibne Qutaibah (d. 276) writes under the title: Ali’s denial to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr:[60]

“Afterwards Ali was brought to Abu Bakr. He was saying: I am God’s servant and brother of Prophet of God. He was told: Do Bay’at with Abu Bakr.

Ali said: Rather I deserve to take Bay’at. I won’t do Bay’at with you. It is you that must do Bay’at to me.

Umar said: Unless you do Bay’at, you are not free.

Ali told Umar: By God, O Umar! I do not accept your word and nor would I give Bay’at.

Abu Bakr said to Ali: If you don’t do Bay’at, I will not force you.”

The writer says under the heading: How was the Bay’at of Ali with Abu Bakr:

“They pulled out Ali and took him to Abu Bakr and said to him: Do Bay’at.

Ali asked: What if I don’t?

They said: By God, except Whom there is no god! We shall kill you.

Abu Bakr was silent. He did not utter a word. Then Umar said Abu Bakr: Why don’t you issue any orders to him?

Abu Bakr replied: I don’t order him as long as Fatima is by his side.”[61]

This historical document has an explanation. Fatima’s house was attacked. It was set afire. Ali was pulled out by force against his will and inclination. He was taken to the mosque and threatened with death. Because of Zahra’s presence in the mosque and her defense of Ali, he returned home without doing Bay’at with Abu Bakr.[62] He even pretended to having done Bay’at to be free from the tyranny of the regime.

In other words, according to a historical document, which is from a reliable source, acknowledged[63] by Sunni sect, no hand shaking or ceremony of placing hand in the hand of Abu Bakr took place. Because of the presence of Prophet’s daughter in the mosque, he (Ali) was set free.

Conclusion of the Eight Documents

Paying attention to:

1 - Ayyashi has also mentioned in the beginning of the document that we quoted from him: The presence of Zahra in the mosque and the threat that she will curse the Caliph and his supporters.

2 - Majlisi too before the document we related from him has referred to the above incident. It emphasizes that Ali was freed because of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.).

The text of the document in question reads as under: “Then she took his hand and set out with him.”[64]

3 - Tabarsi has also referred to this in the document we have mentioned from him.[65]

So we conclude:

There appears no contradiction between the narration of Ibne Qutaibah and other historical documents. If reconciled with one another it leads us to conclude that:

A) Abu Bakr saw Zahra entering the mosque. So he sufficed on that much military action[66] against the Family of Prophet considering it a commitment on the part of Ali to do Bay’at and to not take up arms against the system of Caliphate.

B) The hand of Imam Ali (a.s.) reaches the hand of Abu Bakr while Ali’s hand was closed in a fist. It happens at a time when the attack over Zahra’s House was parallel to rushing out of Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet. As such, it is obvious that it took place against the wish and will of Imam Ali (a.s.).

C) The Imam Ali’s (a.s.) hand reaches the hand of Abu Bakr and Zahra too reaches the mosque. It happens simultaneously. It was a tyranny applied most wickedly on Ali. Then Zahra threatened to curse the Caliph (Abu Bakr) and his supporters.

Therefore Abu Bakr was content with that much and as a result of curse of Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) freed His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

D) Some audiences, particularly supporters of Abu Bakr, have narrated the event in a way that it reflects that Ali did Bay’at willingly without any force or pressure and that he willingly put his hand into the hand of Abu Bakr.

E) Ibne Qutaibah refrains from narrating detailed facts such as attack on Zahra’s house and exercising every possible atrocity and force against Ali to get his Bay’at. There events happened simultaneously with the advent of Zahra to mosque. He wants to exculpate Abu Bakr and pose him as innocent. He relates in such a way as if Abu Bakr waited for the arrival of Zahra to mosque to set Ali free. Further, he shows as if Abu Bakr was not pleased with the deeds of his colleagues.

Remark

In the end we remind:

Some Sunni historians have veiled the conduct of Caliph. They use mild words like:

“Abu Bakr did not want Ali to do Bay’at. He did not force him.[67] ”[68] ![69]

Historical documents openly prove the attack, setting fire to the house, calling for firewood, pulling out of Ali and all the things with their minute details.[70]

Final conclusion about attack on Zahra’s house and efforts for taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)

Paying attention to:

1 - The strict and strong denial of Ali to do Bay’at is recorded in history and narrated by all historians.

2 - This denial itself is a proof of Ali’s dissatisfaction and invalidity of Caliphate. It rescinds credibility of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

3 - Illegitimacy of Caliphate entails two consequences:

A) Abu Bakr in spite of his incompetence had become a Caliph.

B) The issue of Bay’at is also illegal and out of order.

4 - The pressure at such a level over Imam Ali (a.s.), then the atrocities and tyrannies exercised against him themselves prove that the person from whom Bay’at was obtained by trick was not willing to pay it. Had he been willing he would not have had to face this force and threats? All historical documents clearly establish this fact.

On the whole it can be said:

The story refusal of Ali to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr represents:

That he (Ali) regarded Abu Bakr’s Caliphate illegitimate and invalid.

Therefore Abu Bakr comes in a man incompetent for the office. Neither suitability adjusted, nor competence concurred, nor the eligibility determined the office for him.

On the other hand efforts of his associates of Caliphate in taking Bay’at from Amirul Momineen (a.s.) by force failed and thus the Bay’at of Abu Bakr had no validity because it fails to fulfill the necessary conditions.

From this aspect, it can be said:

“To prove Bay’at of Abu Bakr is impossible. A show of it or a feigned Bay’at is in vain - inefficacious and of no effect. In obtaining Bay’at, supporters of Abu Bakr applied force, threats and atrocities against Ali. The Bay’at was taken when the conditions were not favorable. As such, the Bay’at loses its validity.

On the basis of this the only thing that can be proved is that it was a forced Bay’at and hence it was no Bay’at at all.

Final Conclusion

The most important result that comes out of these historical documents is Ali’s displeasure with Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and his denial to it.

Ali’s displeasure can be detected in his efforts to overthrow Abu Bakr’s rule by means of an armed uprising. Further, his continued denial to do Bay’at is also another proof of his unacceptance.

Abu Bakr’s Caliphate was always shown by Ali as not rightful.

In the same way by paying close attention to documents and sources that have recorded the attack on Fatima’s house clearly proves that the atmosphere that reigned at the time of demanding Bay’at from His Eminence (a.s.) was laced with forceful actions, threats and unwillingness.

So it is impossible to prove completion of Bay’at of Abu Bakr by this.

Therefore it is possible to conclude that:

It is not possible to prove the completion of Bay’at of Abu Bakr and its mere pretension has no effect.

Discourse Three: Lack of Public Satisfaction from Abu Bakr’s Caliphate

Historical Documents

Ibne Abil Hadeed Motazalli (d. 656) narrates from Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323):

“When the refusal of Ali to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr became a topic of public discussion and Abu Bakr and Umar became harsher on Ali (a.s.) Umme Mossattah bin Athatha came out to the grave of the Prophet and recited the following verses:

Unpleasant, dreadful things have occurred;

Had you witnessed, little you would have uttered.

We miss you as the earth is of rain deprived,

See your Ummah in confusion, alas, if you had lived.”[71]

Amirul Momineen (a.s.), in order to prove the lack of people’s approval for Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and their lack of satisfaction from that rule says as follows:

“If you have taken their (people’s) affairs in hand on the basis of consultation, then how it is that the very consultants themselves are absent.”[72]

The norm of general popularity is that the approval of people should precede the takeover of affairs.

But even though in Saqifah, only a few had accepted.[73] the government was announced formally and took on legitimacy. After that others were forced to give Bay’at.

When one is at power, to get Bay’at from people or any particular person becomes easier. The conditions of Bay’at are freedom, liberty and choice. If these elements are absent the Bay’at is worthless. Bay’at must be the right of masses - to accord. Bay’at is not the right of rulership to be obtained from the people by force.

“The fundamental discussions regarding Saqifah are about identification of opponents of Abu Bakr. The most important result of it is that the claim of consensus disappears and loses its worth.

Names of opponents are not recorded in history. Generally, names of reputed personalities are paid attention to. Prominent personalities come to mind. The common ones glide into oblivion. Those personalities have a following to whom opinion of their role models is acceptable.

Some have been mentioned in groups. For instance, in the early stage Bani Hashim refrained from Bay’at.[74]

In fact, Kinda tribe refused to pay the Zakat. They did so because they opposed Abu Bakr’s becoming Caliph.

So opponents of Abu Bakr’s selection are many in number. A multitude of them cannot be mentioned here.

Most opponents of Abu Bakr later were either killed or bribed or promised future gains, so their number diminished. They later did the required Bay’at. It needs a separate chapter to discuss this.

We could gather the names of following fifty opponents:…”[75]

After that he has listed these names in alphabetical order.

Another look at Historical Documents about Public Allegiance to Abu Bakr

Document No. 1

In Sahih Bukhari, which is the most reliable source of Sunni sect, it is mentioned from Ayesha that people were threatened to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr.

This document is most important testimony that establishes incredibility and worthlessness of peoples’ Bay’at to Abu Bakr. When Bay’at is wrong and of no worth it overruns peoples’ acceptance or their acknowledgment of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.

Ayesha narrated after narrating developments of Saqifah:

“Umar had threatened the people.”[76]

Document No. 2

On authority of Abu Bakr Jauhari (d. 323) Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656) narrates: Umar behaved with those who had taken refuge in Fatima’s house as follows:

“Then he said: I swear by God in Whose hands lies my life that I will take you to perform Bay’at. If not, I will burn this house over you. Then he pulled them out by ropes around their necks. He dragged them by force until they gave Bay’at to Abu Bakr.”[77]

Document No. 3

In the same way he writes about his (Umar’s) roughness and atrocities to strengthen Abu Bakr’s Caliphate:

“It was Umar who established Bay’at of Abu Bakr. He suppressed all those who opposed Bay’at, he broke the sword of Zubair when Zubair pulled it out. He hit at the chest of Miqdad. He, in Saqifah plotted against Saad bin Ubadah and shouted: Kill Saad. May God kill Saad. He defeated Bani Habbab Mundhir. He threatened and pulled out those from Bani Hashim who had taken refuge in Zahra’s House.

And if there was not Umar, Abu Bakr’s rule would have never established.”[78]

Document No. 4

On this matter, historical sources, proofs and documents are so numerous that Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413) writes:

“The incidents of forcing people to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr and taking them to Abu Bakr against their will and pleasure are so numerous that this book would fall short of pages if we were to mention all of them.”[79]

Document No. 5

For instance, Shaykh Ahmad Tabarsi (6th century) narrates:

“Umar belted his waist tightly and started roaming the streets of Medina. He was shouting: Beware! Abu Bakr has been acknowledged as Caliph. So hurry up to do Bay’at with him.

People rushed and crowded at and in the mosque to do Bay’at with Abu Bakr.

Umar knew that some remained in their houses to avoid Bay’at. He attacked them by surprise and brought them by force to the mosque to give Bay’at.”[80]

His support was an armed gang, blacks and nomads from Bani Aslam tribe, who by the admission of Umar himself had a very important role in the success of Saqifah party.

Document No. 6

“Tabari narrates that after their arrival in Medina they gathered in the streets in such large numbers that the streets were jammed and Umar said: When I saw Bani Aslam tribe I became certain of victory.”[81]

Document No. 7

Ibne Athir has mentioned in the book Kamil:

Bani Aslam tribe arrived and its members did Bay’at. Then Abu Bakr became strong and at that time people gave Bay’at to Abu Bakr.[82]

Document No. 8

More eloquent than these two is Shaykh Mufeed in the book of Jamal. His quotes from Abu Mikhnaf that: A group of nomad Arabs came to Medina to buy rations. People did not attend to them because on that day the Prophet of God had passed away.

They also did Bay’at with the new Caliph and accepted his rulership. Then Umar called them and said:

Whatever rations you need, will be given to you free provided you go into the lanes and streets of the town, gather the people and take them to Abu Bakr to do Bay’at with him. You are free to break head or nose of anyone who resists.

The narrator says: I saw those rough Arabs all of a sudden tightening their waists and then without any warning they started hitting people with canes and forced them to do Bay’at.[83]

That is why afterwards many tried to justify these atrocities to exempt them from shame of desert dwelling and being nomads.

Ayesha by way of thanks for their beneficial service to her father fabricated a saying of Prophet in praise of these Arabs. But the falsehood of this tradition can well be understood by the readers.[84] ”[85]

Document No. 9

In the same way Masoodi says in Athbaat al-Wisaya, page 116:

“Umar paid allegiance to Abu Bakr. That is he did by hitting by his hand over that of Abu Bakr. Then the desert Arabs who were at that time in Medina did Bay’at with Abu Bakr. Then non-Muslims who were in Medina under protection of Muslims enjoining their hospitality and kind treatment and consideration also performed Bay’at to show their gratitude and to please them. They saw themselves indebted to Muslims for their favors. So they thought it was a proper time and befitting opportunity to return their thanks. After them others did Bay’at.”

Document No. 10

Ibne Abil Hadeed (d. 656) has also narrated from Baraa bin Azib that:

“I saw Abu Bakr with Umar and Abu Ubadah and a group of Saqifah associates coming forward. They had tied their waists tight. Whomever they came across, they beat up and forced to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr. It did not matter to them whether he liked it or not.”[86]

Document No. 11

Zubair bin Bukkar in his book Mawafaqiaat has quoted from Sharh Nahjul Balagha of Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 6 Pg. 287 that:

“Abu Bakr became strong with the Bay’at of Bani Aslam. But it is not known when Bani Aslam turned their backs at him.”[87]

More interesting is that ignoring all these historical testimonies regarding the attitude of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) they still claim:

“The reason of this Bay’at was to honor public opinion.”![88]

“When the majority of people concentrate on someone else, it becomes necessary to preserve unity in society by Bay’at.”![89]

In the end, it is pointed out:

“The thought of selecting a Caliph through general consensus is like searching for causes after something has already happened. It is creation of fanciful elements of history and not a justification applicable to the event that has already occurred. Sunni scholars also do not claim thus. They do not think it is necessary for Imamate.

Sometimes a social phenomena appears or takes to itself existence in a way or other, occasionally the base of monitoring movements is geared by a handful of conjectures. It is justified only for the sake of justification. But the very spirit that brought the phenomena into being is ignored.

Justification of the Caliph’s rule by means of public opinion or its being a government of majority over minority is a formula that obviously serves the ground with regard to Caliphs. The issue of public opinion was never applied, nor ever occurred to them.

In order to decorate Caliphate of Caliphs with an outer show of its being with the people or having had come from the people, some writers have tried to justify it. It exists only in the imaginations of those who justify Caliphs. Reality is something else. It is among those causes that come into being after the happening of a thing.[90]

Even though it is claimed:

“Imam Ali (a.s.) did Bay’at after a period to guard unity among Muslims.”[91]