• Start
  • Previous
  • 13 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 9788 / Download: 3901
Size Size Size
The Attraction and Repulsion Of Ali (A.S)

The Attraction and Repulsion Of Ali (A.S)

Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
English

Note:

Another translation of this book is available on the following link:

http://alhassanain.org/english/?com=book&id=106

The Forceful Attraction

In preface to the first volume of "Khatam-e-Payambran " about the Missions", we read as under-All the missions emerging amidst mankind, have neither been identical, nor their sphere of influence has been uniform.

One of these missions and systems may be mono-dimensional and might have proceeded only in one direction; at the time of its introduction it might have covered extensive surface, and might have allured millions as its followers, but subsequently we find its life span having been almost rolled off and itself put to oblivion. Yet another may be bi-dimensional, i.e. spreading in two directions, viz. covering a vast surface and also proceeding in future,its impact being not only "spacious" but also "enduring".

While others have marched ahead multi-dimensionally. They have commanded immense multitudes of humanity over vast lands and brought them under their influence, we find their imprints in every continent of the globe. They held the reins of time too, i.e. they could not be confined to one time or age. They have been at the climax of temporal authority for centuriestogether, they have also spread their roots in the depths of human souls, controlled the very pulse of humanity and have ruled the inmost of human hearts. Such tri-dimensional missions are peculiar to the Apostolical line alone.

Which school of thought or philosophy can be cited in comparison to theworld's major religions who have been ruling for thirty centuries, for twenty centuries or at least for fourteen centuries and their believers' conscience have been cleaving fast to them? Attractions are, likewise, sometimes mono-dimensional, sometimes bi-dimensional and at others tri-dimensional.

Ali's attraction is of the last category, it attracts immense multitude of men, is not confined to one century or two; it has rather been perpetuat­ing in time and progressing in expansion. The fact of the matter is that it has been in luster throughout the centuries and ages, and has penetrated from surface to the depths of human minds and hearts so that even after centuries when man is put to reminiscence about Ali and listens to hymns of his glories, tears of joy come out of his eyes; and when they weep about his sufferings, the cries they wail would move the worst of Ali's enemies to tears. This is the most forceful attraction.

From here we deduce that men's attachment to religion is not shallow like the one's to matter. It is rather different attachment like which nothing else attaches to human soul.

Had Ali not had the complexion of God and had he not been a man of Allah, he must have been forgotten.

Human history bears traces of many a hero:-

Heroes of Oracles, heroes of learning and philosophy, heroes of power and dominion and heroes of battlefields; but man has either forgotten them all or has not taken notice of them. But to Ali, assassination could not render death; he rather emerged livelier. He himself says: "The accumulators of wealth are dead though breathing. The learned (scholars '-of divinity) would live as long as the time runs; their bodies have disappeared but their impressions survive on pages of human minds".

About himself, Ali says; "Look to my time in future when my merits, so far not recognised, will become manifest, and you will recognise me when you miss me and find another in my place".

My age is ignorant of worth My Yousaf is not for this market;I am disappointed of my old friends;My love is ablaze for a Moses;The Ocean of friends is silent like dew;My dew like a tide bears a storm;My hymns are from another world;This clarion-call is from another caravan;Many poets emerge after their deaths;They shut their eyes to open ours;They derived beauty from nothingness;From their graves they blossom like flowers;My Uman will not be contained by drain;Ocean beds are required for my storm;I have lightening hidden in my heart;The hill sand deserts are gateways to my exhibition;They have blessed me with the "spring of life";They have made me aware of "secret of life";The secret which I divulge has been divulged by none;Like my thought none has arranged even pearls;Old heaven told me this secret, from friends keep nothing concealed".

In fact Ali is like laws of nature which operate to infinity. He is source of generosity that never exhausts, rather becomes voluminous with the passage of every day. To quote Jabran Khalil Jabran: "He came in a time much earlier to his own". Some people are leaders for their own time, a few give lead to future also but gradually their leadership goes to oblivion. But Ali and a few others are guides and the leaders till eternity.

SHI'ITE FAITH: SCHOOL OF LOVE AND AFFECTION

Of all the great distinctions, which the Shi'ite faith enjoys among all the religions of the world, one is that its very basis and foundation lay in love. Since the lifetime of the Prophet himself when this religion was founded, it has been a source of love and fraternity; along with the Holy Prophet having said "Ali and his shi'ites are exultant", we find hosts of 13 men rallying around Ali -- fond, warm and devoted to him.Hence shi'ite faith, a religion of devotion and dedication. Alliance with him is the school of love and devotion. Element of love operates with full vigor in Shiaism. History of Shiaism is the other name of biography of a ceaseless line of dedicated, selfless and venturesome devotees.

Ali is that very person from whom men never resiled even if he enforced Hadd (Punishment Prescribed by the Quran) on them and lashed them. Virtually in accordance with the rule of Shariat he cut off the hand of one of them, but nothing could impair their love with Ali. He himself says:

"Even if you find me striking a faithful with this sword so as to offend him, he will never show enmity towards me, and if I bestow the whole world on a hypocrite, so that he may become my friend, he will not accept me as his friend, because the Prophet has said: "Oh! Ali faithful will not become your enemy and the hypocrite will not make friends with you".

Ali is the scale and yardstick to measure the natures and tempera­ments. He who has a pious nature and sound temperament is never annoyed with him, let Ali's sword fall on him; and he who has a polluted nature will not associate with Ali, let Ali be kind towards him, because Ali is nothing but the Truth personified. There was a gentleman of distinction and faith from amongst the friends of Amir-ul-Momineen. Unfortunately he defaulted and the default involved corporeal punishment. Amir-ul-Momineen got his right palm cut off. Holding it in his left hand the convict went ahead bleeding, Ibn Kawa, a Kharijite rebel wanted to capitalize the situation for the benefit of his own band and to the detriment of Ali. Pretending pity, he approached the convict and said, "Who has chopped off your hand?" He said, "My hand has been cut off by the foremost of Prophet's successors, the leader of the brilliant of the doomsday, the nearest to Truth among the faithful, Ali-Ibn-Abi Talib, the Imam of guidance, the first to reach the beneficence of the heavens, the champion of the intrepid, revengeful against followers of the evil, the munificent in alms, the leader to the path of virtue and perfection, the oracle of truth and magnificence, the gallant Meccan and the magnanimous of the believers". Ibn Kawa said, "You be cursed, he chops your hand off and you praise him like this?" He said "Why should I not praise him while the fact is that his affinity is blended in my flesh and blood. By God, he did not remove my hand except as 'ordained by Allah". Such devotion and alliance as we find in the history of Ali and his friends, invite our attention to the phenomenon of love and devotion and its effects.

THE ALCHEMY OF LOVE

The poets of Persian describedevotion( Ishque ) as alchemy: Alchemists believed that there is a matter in the universe with the name ' Ikseer ' or 'Kimia' which has the capacity to transmute the matters. They exhausted centuries to discover it. The poets borrowed this term and said that the real Alchemy, which has the potential to cause a change, is love and devotion, because devotion can change the nature. Devotion is absolute "Ikseer" and has the quality of alchemy, i.e., it transmutes one metal into another. Men are also of different metals like gold and silver. It is devotion which makes a cardiological organ the heart; if there is no love there is no heart, it is only a piece of mud and water that each heart which lacks pangs is not a heart, The melancholic heart is nothing but a handful of mud:

Oh! God give me a warm, enkindling bosom.

In that bosom a heart which should be all affectionate.

The vigor and strength are from the by-products of devotion; love generates vigor and makes a brave out of a coward.

A domestic hen, as long as it is all alone, collects the plumage on its back, walks leisurely, becomes restive for finding an insect to eat, flees away on a slight alarm and shows little resistance even against a child; but when this very fowl, has a brood, love and devotion get entered into its living figure and its habits are changed: It. drops down the plumage, collected on its back as an indication of preparedness and self-defense, assumes the warring position, so much so that its echo becomes more forceful and braver. Earlier, it would flee on apprehending a danger but now it would assault in case of such an apprehension and would lead a bold aggression; this is love that has made a daring animal out of a timid hen.

Love and devotion transforms the ugly and sluggish into handsome and smart. So much so that it makes a brilliant out of a stupid. The boy and the girl who in their single life never worried themselves about anything, unless it directly concerned them, but as soon as they enter into mutual attachment and organize a matrimonial life, each of them for the first time finds concerned with the fate of the other. At that time the canvas of their desires expands. And when they have become parents of a son, their whole nature is completely changed. That boy who was lazy and sluggish has now become smart and active, and that girl who would never rise from her bed even per force would now leap like lightning on hearing the cry of her cradle-rider. What is that power which has made both of them so sensitive? That is nothing but love and devotion. Devotion makes a generous out of a miser, a powerful and forbearing out of a weak and impatient.

This is because of devotion, that a selfish hen, which was always worried to collect grain for self preservation, as soon as it became of brood on finding a single grainit calls the chickens to feast. Or to that mother, who till yesterday was a listless daughter always slumbering and eating, weak and irritant, love has now given her the strength to resist hunger, to forbear toil, to resign indolence, to be patient and forbearing and to withstand all the labours of being a mother.

In the parlance of poetry and literature, in chapters about the effects of love, we often enjoy one phenomenon and that is the intuition as bounty of love.

The nightingale has learnt to sing from bounty of flowers, otherwiseAll this eloquence and lyric were never arranged in her beak.Although prima facie the bounty of flower is a factor external to the figure of nightingale yet in fact it is nothing but the power of love itself.

Do not think that Majnoon became Majnoon himself.

It was Laila's attraction which pulled him from the fish to the star.

Devotion awakens the latent potentialities and liberates the stifled and suppressed faculties, like splitting of an atom and discharge of atomic energy. Devotion is intuitive and emboldening. Many poets, philosophers and men of art are people of love and devotion hence powerful. Love gives perfection to soul and reveals marvelous latent potentialities. From the viewpoint of perception it is intuitive, and from the view point of qualities of sentiments it enhances the will power; and when it ascends to the climax, it performs wonders and miracles.

It purifies the soul from contamination and pollution, in other words, love is a purifier. Love, by washing away the beastly qualities arising out of selfishness, apathy and indifference like miserliness, parsimony, cowardice lethargy, arrogance and self-conceit; destroys and annihilates hatred and vindictiveness. No doubt, failure and deprivation may happen in love and it may generate problems and animosities.

Love makes bitterness sweet.

Love transmutes copper to gold.

If the love is relatable to spirit, it enlightens and enriches the soul; but if it is relatable to body, it would result in its deterioration and degeneration. The effect of spiritual love is just the converse of material love. Material love brings about pessimism, pale face, feeble limbs and defect in digestion and indisposition in muscles. Perhaps the consequences of material love are all destructive but this is not so in the case of spiritual love. Then what should the object of love be?and how should one benefit from it? Leaving aside its social effects, the effect of spiritual love on individual is perhaps compli­mentary because it generates vigor, tenderness, unification and determina­tion, and eliminates weakness, impurity, dissension and stupidity. It removes deviations that are called "intrigue" by the Quran, eradicates fraud and transmutes impostor to virtuous:-

The master soul annihilates the body, thereafter reconstructs it,Virtuous is the soul who for the sake of love and happiness, Gave away his home and hearth, property and wealth,He robbed his house of the precious treasure, and filled it with wealth more,He sucked away the water from the riverbed,Thereafter he inundated it with water and benefited from it,He pierced the skin with the spear, thereafter he spread a new layer,The perfect, who know the secret of quest,Are perplexed, intoxicated and enamored,Not so much perplexed as to turn back on him (beloved),Rather so perplexed as (to be) absorbed and lost in the loved one.

BREAKING THE BARRIER

Regardless of its kind, whether carnal (animal) biological (animal) or human, and regardless of the charms and qualities of the beloved, may be he is brave, gallant, efficient, scholarly or has moral values, and any other special merits or qualifications, love and devotion takes one out of selfish­ness. Selfishness is a limitation and a barrier, and loving another virtually breaks this barrier. Man remains weakling, timid, miser, jealous, malicious, intolerant, selfish and arrogant as long as he does not step out of himself. His soul has no spark and no brilliance, it lacks charm and anxiety, it is always cold and slumbering, but instantly he steps out of himself and breaks the barrier of "self", these evil characteristics also vanish away. Whosoever has torn off his garb while inlove, becomes purged of greed and blemish!

Breaking the barrier of selfishness does not mean that one should sever all relations with one's personality, nor does it mean that man should so strive as to detach relations with his own person.

It does not mean that in order to get rid of selfishness man should sever the relations, which he has with himself. It does not mean that man should endeavour to dislike himself. The relation with oneself, which is named as "Love of Self" has not been misplaced as to be removed. The reformation and perfection of man does not presuppose that a tissue of redundance has been planted in man, and that these weeds and harmful elements should be removed from him. In other words the reformation of man does not lie in impairing him. It rather lies in complementing and supplementing him. The function assigned to man by nature is towards propagation, i.e. it lies in perfection and augmentation and not in reduction and elimination.

Combat with selfishness is combat with ego-centricism. The self should get expansion. This hedge drawn about ego, which wards off everything as alien, foreign and extraneous, which does not concern him as exclusively personal, must be removed. Personality should so expand as to embrace the whole mankind, rather the whole of nature. Hence combat with selfishness, combat with ego-centricism. As such, selfishness is nothing but limitation of aims and objects. Love rouses man's feelings and tendencies to advert to something external. It expands his personality and changes his outlook towards life. For this reason, love and affection is a great moral and instruc­tive factor provided it is well guided and properly exploited.

CONSTRUCTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE

When alliance with a person or a thing develops to extreme intensity so much so that it dominates man and becomes his absolute ruler, is called (Ishque). Love is climax of feelings and alliance.

However, it should not be understood that what has been so named is of one kind. It has got two absolutely different kinds. That which is said to bear good consequences is of one kind, but the other kind leads to absolutely harmful and negative consequences.

Human feelings have kinds and degrees. A part of them is for category of lust, particularly sexual lust. It is, for reasons, common to men and all animals. With this difference that, for peculiar and inexplicable reasons, it is found in incalculable proportion and intensity in man, whence it is called love. In animals it is not found to this extent. However, for its nature and kind it is nothing but fury. Reversion and turmoil of sex originates from sexual sources and ends therein. Its intensity and dissipation are concomitants, on the one end is indulgence in sexual intercourse particularly in youthful years, and on the other, i.e. with advance in years, is the diminution of satisfaction and potency or may be their total dissipation. A young man who, on seeing a pretty face and a curly hair, spontaneously shudders, and on touch of a soft hand instantly twists, must know that it is nothing but a material animal phenomenon. Such loves are quick to erupt and still quicker to fade away. It is not dependable or commendable. It is dangerous and humiliating. It yields benefits to man only when it is reinforced with virtue, continence and non-submission i.e., of itself the stimulant leads to no virtue. However, if it penetrates in a man, and is co-existent with virtue and continence and also the soul has withstood its pressure without submitting to it, it would invigorate and augment the soul.

Man has other feelings also which for their kind and nature are different to lust. It is better to call them affection or in the parlance of the Quran to describe them as 'respect' and 'compassion' Man, as long as he remains under the influence of his lust, does not step out of himself. He wants with intensity the person or the object of his attraction for himself. If he thinks of his beloved, he does so for finding opportunity for cohabitation and maximum satisfaction. It is obvious that conditions like this are neither complementary to nor reformative of human world nor do they purify man's soul. But when man submits to the influence of superior human affection, his beloved enjoys respect and prestige in his view and he wishes the beloved prosperity. He is ready to sacrifice himself for the beloved's object. Such affections bring about purity, rectitude, benevolence, tenderness and selflessness; contrary to this is the first category which gives rise to fury, savagery and debauchery. The love and affection of mother to the son are from this category. The love with and dedication to the saints, the divines, the country, and the ideologies are also from this category.

When the sentiments of this category reach the climax and perfection, they yield all those virtuous consequences that we have detailed above. This is the category, which lends grandeur, individuality and sublimity to the soul as against the first category, which is humiliating. Moreover, this category of love is durable and becomes more forceful and warmer by reunion, as against the first category which is short lived, and fruition is considered to be its grave.

In the Holy Quran alliance between wife and husband has been described as (respect) and (compassion). It has greatsignificance, it gives indication towards human conjugal life's being superior to animals. It means that the factor of sex is not the only natural relation­ship between spouses. The real tie is to be found in virtue, rectitude and the unity of two souls: In other words, what unify the spouses are the love, respect, virtue and rectitude and not the lust which exists in animals as well.

Maulvi, in his own beautiful style, by creating distinction between lust and respect calls the former to be animal and latter to be human:

Fury and lust are attributes of animals,Love and tenderness are human qualities;Such merits are (found) in man;Love is lacking in animals and it is for their deficiency.

Even the Philosophers of materialism could not deny this abstract condition in man, which for its being metaphysical is not consistent with their theory of man's being only a superior material animate.

Bertrand Russell in his Book "Marriage and Morals" says:-"Work of which the motive is solely pecuniary cannot have this value, but only work which embodies some kind of devotion, whether to persons, to things, or merely to a vision. And love itself is worthless when it is merely possessive; it is then on a level with work, which is merely pecuniary. In order to have the kind of value of which we are speaking, love must feel the ego of the beloved person as important as one's own ego, and must realize the other's feelings and wishes as though they wereone's own".

Another point, which may be dealt with, and which does invite our attention, lies in our assertion that even sensual love may be beneficial when continence and virtue are its attendants, i.e., once inaccessibility and parting and then continence, virtue and piety bring such poignant grief and anguish, pressure and hardship to soul as yield good and beneficial results. It is in this context that the mystics say that "even carnal love may get transformed into spiritual love, i.e. love with God". This tradition has also been narrated in the same context: Whosoever fell in love, became reticent and practised continence till death, he had a martyr's end. This point should not be lost sight of that this sort of love with all the benefits that in the special circumstances it carries, is not commendable. It is in fact dangerous. Viewed from this aspect it is like a misery, which, if faced ungrudgingly and patiently by a man whom it befalls, is complemen­tary and purifying for him; it ripens the raw and purifies the contaminated. But none would opt misery for himself so as to benefit from this instruc­tive factor, nor on this pretexthe can invent misery for others.

Russell elaborately writes on this subject:-

"To a man of sufficient energy, pain may be a valuable stimulus, and I do not deny that if we were all perfectly happy we should not exert ourselves to become happier. But I cannot admit that it is any part of the duty of human beings to provide others with pains on the off chance that it may prove fruitful. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, pain proves merely crushing. In the hundredth case it is better to trust to the natural shocks that flesh is hair to."

As we know that in teachings of Islam much has been devoted to the benefits and effects of miseries and hardships, and they have (at times) been described as an index of Divine bounty, but on this excuse no one has been allowed to cause misery tohimself or to others.

There is yet another difference between love and misery, i.e. love is greater "adversary of wisdom" than any other factor is. Wherever it treads, it dislodges wisdom from authority.

For these reasons love and wisdom have been introduced as two rivals in saintly literature. The rivalry between the philosophers and the saints emanates from this very source, because the former place reliance on and seek confidence from the authority of wisdom while the latter do so from the force of love. In the saintly literature, in the field of this rivalry wisdom has always been recognised to have been dominated and overpowered. Sa'di says:

"The well wishers advise throwing bricks on the Ocean is useless.Anxiety has upper hand on patience Claim of wisdom over love is false

Another (poet) says:

"I think the scheme of wisdom in the course of love (is),"Like dew attempting script on an Ocean".

The power, which has assumed these proportions, snatches the reins of authority, and in the words of Maulvi "it pulls man from one side to the other as does the storm to a petal of grass".

How could something which according to Russell is "out of anarchic impulses" be commendable?

However, to be occasionally of good effects is one thing and to be commendable is the other.

From here it becomes clear that the objection and criticism of some Muslim jurists on some of the sages of Islam, who have introduced this moot in theology and have described its consequences and effects, are not appro­priate because the former have (wrongly) thought that these sages believed that such a pursuit was desirable and commendable, while the fact remains that they have expressed their views only about useful consequences which it might yield if it is coupled with continence and virtue, without holding it to be desirable and commendable; just like miseries and hardships.

5. Was Abu Bakr Even Qualified To Lead?

Apart from the severe contradictions in the ahadith on Abu Bakr’s alleged leadership of salat during the Prophet’s fatal illness, there is also the question of its factual possibility. It is one thing for something to be possible; it is another for it to have truly occurred. Where it is impossible, then all reports of its occurrence are false by default. However, where it is possible, then additional, consistent and authentic evidence of its actual occurrence must be produced by whoever seeks to rely on that fact. With regards to Abu Bakr’s alleged leadership of the salat, there are only conflicting, irreconcilable “proofs” of it. As such, there actually are none. In this chapter, we seek to explore the possibility of it even ever happening. This way, we bury it for good.

Without a doubt, the very first step in determining the possibility of Abu Bakr’s leadership of the salat is to establish or discredit his qualification for it. Unless it is proved that he was qualified to lead, then every effort to claim that he did is futile. If he was not qualified, apparently his appointment as prayer leader by the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, would have been impossible. However, if he was qualified, it would, in that case, be at least possible. Then, additional, unquestionable evidence would become admissible to establish its factual occurrence.

So, was Abu Bakr qualified to lead the Messenger of Allah in salat? Moreover, was he equally qualified to lead the Sahabah in salat in the Prophet’s mosque?

The answer to the first question is in this verse:

يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تقدموا بين يدي الله ورسوله واتقوا الله إن الله سميع عليم

O you who believe! Do not lead in front of Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah isAll- Hearing, All-Knowing.1

This effectively makes it absolutely haram to lead the Prophet of Allah in anything – including in battles and salat. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) also states:

حكى ذلك القاضي عياض قال ولا يصح لأحد أن يؤم جالسا بعده صلى الله عليه وسلم قال وهو مشهور قول مالك وجماعة أصحابه قال وهذا أولى الأقاويل لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يصح التقدم بين يديه في الصلاة ولا في غيرها ولا لعذر ولا لغيره

That is narrated from Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ. He said, “It is not correct for anyone to lead in salat in a sitting posture other than him, peace be upon him.” He said, “And this is the famous statement of Malik and the majority of his companions.” He said, “And this is the most correct of the opinions, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him in salat or in anything else, whether due to an excuse or otherwise.”2

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H), while relating the submissions of Qaḍi Iyaḍ, reports:

واحتج أيضا بأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما صلى بهم قاعدا لأنه لا يصح التقدم بين يديه لنهى الله عن ذلك

He cited as proof also the fact that he, peace be upon him, led them in salat in a sitting posture, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him, due to the prohibition of that by Allah.3

In simpler words, it was absolutely impossible that Abu Bakr ever led Muhammad in salat or in any anything else. Allah has totally forbidden that; and so, Abu Bakr was NOT qualified in any way or by any means to lead the Messenger in salat or in any other situation or circumstance. Even Abu Bakr too realized this, as documented by Imam Muslim (d. 261 H):

قال أبو بكر ما كان لابن أبي قحافة أن يصلي بين يدي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

Abu Bakr said, “It is NOT for the son of Abu Quhafah (i.e. Abu Bakr) to lead salat in front of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.”4

So, all the reports about how the Prophet was led in salat by Abu Bakr or anyone else from this Ummah are fallacious and hold no truth at all. The Book of Allah rejects them, and Abu Bakr too denounced them. There is also an element of high blasphemy in those ahadith. The only way Abu Bakr could have legitimately led the Messenger of Allah in salat was if the latter had lost or forfeited his risalah (messengership) and had become inferior to the former in many areas.

Moreover, we ask our Sunni brothers: who was the ruler of Madinah at that moment when – as your sect claims - Abu Bakr led the Prophet in salat? Was it the Messenger? Or, was it Abu Bakr? This question is crucial in the light of some authentic narrations in your books. For instance, Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) records:

حدثنا هناد حدثنا أبومعاوية عن الأعمش عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال لا يؤم الرجل في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Hanad – Abu Mu’awiyah – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja - Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”5

Al-Tirmidhi says:

هذا حديث حسن صحيح

This hadith is hasan sahih6

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) also comments:

صحيح

Sahih7

Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) also documents:

أخبرنا إبراهيم بن محمد التيمي قال حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن شعبة عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يؤم الرجل في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Taymi – Yahya b. Sa’id – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”8

And ‘Allamah al-Albani declares again:

صحيح

Sahih9

So, if the Prophet of Allah was really still the amir of the Muslims at that moment, then Abu Bakr was further disqualified from ever leading him insalat ! Whoever insists that Abu Bakr was his Imam is telling us that he (the Messenger) had lost authority over Madinah. Meanwhile, the authority of the Prophet was, and still is, tied to his risalah, among others. As such, if he had lost authority over Madinah, then he must have lost all his divine ranks. The direct implication of this is – the only way Abu Bakr could have been the Prophet’s Imam was if the latter was no longer a messenger of Allah, at the least! Therefore, whoever claims that Abu Bakr led him in salat has thereby rejected his (i.e. the Prophet’s) risalah! There is simply no second way to it.

In other ahadith, the Messenger of Allah mentions some other conditions with farther reaching implications. Imam Muslim records:

وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة وأبو سعيد الأشج كلاهما عن أبي خالد قال أبو بكر حدثنا أبو خالد الأحمر عن الأعمش عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود الأنصاري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله فإن كانوا في القراءة سواء فأعلمهم بالسنة فإن كانوا في السنة سواء فأقدمهم هجرة فإن كانوا في الهجرة سواء فأقدمهم سلما ولا يؤمن الرجل الرجل في سلطانه ولا يقعد في بيته على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah and Abu Sa’id al-Ashja’ – Abu Khalid: Abu Bakr – Abu Khalid al-Ahmar – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them. But, if they are equal in recitation, then the one who is the most knowledgeable among them concerning the Sunnah.If they are equal regarding the Sunnah, then the earliest of them to do the hijrah. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the earliest of them to embrace Islam. No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority, or sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”10

There is need to quickly highlight a point here. Where someone is the ruler or administrator of a place, as long as he is a Muslim, none can lead him in salat in it. He is the automatic Imam, even if he is not the best of them in Qur’anic recitation, or in knowledge of the Sunnah. His political authority overrides all the other set conditions. However, where none in the mosque is the ruler of its area, then the various criteria are examined in the specified order. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) confirms:

وفي رواية مسلم لا يؤمن الرجل الرجل في سلطانه ولذا كان ابن عمر يصلي خلف الحجاج وصح عن ابن عمر أن إمام المسجد مقدم على غير السلطان

In the report of (Imam) Muslim, it is stated “No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority.”... This was why Ibn ‘Umar used to offer salat behind al-Hajjaj. It is also authentically narrated that Ibn ‘Umar stated that the Imam of the mosque leads (only) the non-ruler.11

These facts reveal that leadership in salat is no indicator of superiority before Allah at all. Ibn ‘Umar was superior – in the eyes of Sunni Islam – over al-Hajjaj in all ways and by all means. So, even a drunken Sunni governor can validly be the Imam for a saint of Allah. The other criteria in the hadith are of the same effect as well. The best reciter in the Ummah, who is the most qualified to lead the salat after the ruler or governor, may – just like the executive leader - not necessarily be the best of the Muslims, or their most knowledgeable. Something we wonder about though is – how many of the Sunni kings, sultans, emirs, presidents and sheikhs today lead salat in their grand mosques?

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) also documents:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبة عن إسماعيل بن رجاء قال سمعت أوس بن ضمعج يقول سمعت أبا مسعود يقول قال لنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله تعالى وإقدمهم قراءة فان كانت قراءتهم سواء فليؤمهم أقدمهم هجرة فان كانوا في الهجرة سواء فليؤمهم أكبرهم سنا ولا يؤمن الرجل في أهله ولا في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته في بيته الا ان يأذن له أو بإذنه

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father – Muhammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said to us: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah the Most High among them. But, if their recitations are equal, then the earliest of them in hijrah should lead them in salat. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the oldest of them should lead them in salat. No man can be led in salat among his family members or in a place where he has authority, or none can sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”12

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim13

It is undisputed that Abu Bakr was not the ruler over the Messenger of Allah at any point in time. Therefore, he was automatically and absolutely disqualified from ever leading his Prophet in salat. Besides, was Abu Bakr a better reciter of the Qur’an than the Messenger of Allah? Was he more knowledgeable of the Sunnah than the Prophet? Did Abu Bakr do the hijrah before him? Was he older than his Messenger? Did he accept Islam before his Prophet? We ask – on what basis exactly was Abu Bakr ever qualified lead the Master and Best of all creation in salat? Apparently, there is none, and there can never be any! As such, all the Sunni riwayat about how he supposedly was the Imam of the Messenger are only Sunni exaggerations and hallucinations!

Interestingly, Abu Bakr was equally unqualified to lead even the other Sahabah! In order to be qualified, he had to be their best reciter. But, was he? Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records the answer of ‘Umar:

حدثنا عمرو بن علي حدثنا يحيى حدثنا سفيان عن حبيب عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس قال قال عمر رضي الله عنه: أقرؤنا أبي وأقضانا علي

‘Amr b. ‘Ali – Yahya – Sufyan – Habib – Sa’id b. Jubayr – Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar,may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The best reciter among us is Ubayy, and the best judge among us is ‘Ali.”14

‘Allamah al-Albani has equally copied the Prophetic confirmation of this:

عن أنس بن مالك، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :أرحم أمتي بأمتي أبو بكر وأشدهم في دين الله عمر وأصدقهم حياء عثمان وأقضاهم علي بن أبي طالب. وأقرؤهم لكتاب الله أبي بن كعب

Narrated Anas b. Malik:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said, “The most merciful of my Ummah to my Ummah is Abu Bakr. The most severe of them in the religion of Allah is ‘Umar. The most shy of them is ‘Uthman. And the best judge among them is ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. And the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them is Ubayy b. Ka’b.”15

صحيح

Sahih.16

So, it was not Abu Bakr?! Therefore, it was Ubayy who was qualified for the leadership of the salat and NOT Abu Bakr! With the presence of Ubayy among the Sahabah, Abu Bakr – the first Sunni khalifah – was thereby disqualified from leading either the Prophet or his followers in salat in the grand mosque of Madinah. With this, all the reports about Abu Bakr’s leadership of the salat drown in the Sunni ocean of fabrications. The Messenger of Allah would never place the wrong rod in the right hole – neither by nepotism nor by mistake. The Sunnah is that the best reciter should lead in salat – unless where the ruler is present. Abu Bakr was neither the best reciter nor the ruler. Those facts alone terminate the entire story.

Notes

1. Qur’an 49:1

2. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 2, p. 294

3. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 146

4. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 316, # 421 (102)

5. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 99, # 2772

6. Ibid

7. Ibid

8. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, al-Mujtaba min al-Sunan (Halab: Maktab al-Matbu’at al-Islamiyyah; 2nd edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 2, p. 77, # 783

9. Ibid

10. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 465, # 673 (290)

11. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 2, p. 29

12. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 4, p. 121, # 17133

13. Ibid

14. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 4, p. 1628, # 4211

15. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah (Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1417 H), vol. 1, pp. 67-68, # 125

16. Ibid

6. Imamah of Bastards and Children

The most qualified to lead salat in any circumstance is the Muslim administrator within his domain, according to Sunni Islam. He may be righteous or a drunkard. He may be a good reciter or a poor one. He may be knowledgeable or ignorant. He is the automatic Imam. Where he is absent in the mosque, then the most qualified is the best reciter among those present. This best reciter too may also be the best of them in the Sight of Allah – in terms of taqwa (piety) and knowledge – or one of their worst. Leadership in salat has nothing to do with righteousness or spiritual superiority. A lot of Sunni ahadith testify to this. We have discussed some of them in the last chapter. Let us briefly quote a few more before proceeding. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا يحيى بن سعيد ثنا هشام قال ثنا قتادة عن يونس بن جبير عن حطان بن عبد الله الرقاشي ان الأشعري صلى بأصحابه صلاة... فقال الأشعري ...ان نبي الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خطبنا فعلمنا سنتنا وبين لنا صلاتنا فقال أقيموا صفوفكم ثم ليؤمكم أقرؤكم

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Sa’id – Hisham – Qatadah – Yunus b. Jubayr – Hittan b. ‘Abd Allah al-Raqashi:

Al-Ash’ari led his companions in a salat So, al-‘Ashari said, “... Verily, the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, gave us a sermon and taught us our Sunnah, and explained to us our salat. So, he said, ‘Establish your congregational rows. Then, the best reciter among you should be your Imam.’”1

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.2

Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) also documents:

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا أبو عوانة عن قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

Qutaybah b. Sa’id – Abu ‘Awanah – Qatadah – Abu Naḍrah – Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “Whenever there are three persons, one of them should be their Imam. The most entitled to be the Imam among them is the best reciter among them.3

Imam Ahmad again records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عبد الرزاق أنا بن جريج قال لي عبد الملك ان أنس بن مالك قال عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال يؤم القوم أقرؤهم للقرآن

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd al-Malik – Anas b. Malik:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, said: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Qur’an among them.”4

Al-Arnaut submits:

صحيح لغيره

It is sahih li ghayrihi5

The Sahabah too put this into practice. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) documents such an instance:

حدثنا إبراهيم بن المنذر قال حدثنا أنس بن عياض عن عبيد الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال : لما قدم المهاجرون الأولون العصبة موضع بقباء قبل مقدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم كان يؤمهم سالم مولى أبي حذيفة وكان أكثرهم قرآنا

Ibrahim b. al-Mundhir – Anas b. ‘Iyaḍ – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the earliest Muhajirun came to al-‘Usbah, a place in Quba, before the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead them in salat, and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them.6

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) comments about this hadith:

قوله) وكان أكثر هم قرآنا (إشارة إلى سبب تقديمهم له مع كونهم أشرف منه وفي رواية للطبراني لأنه كان أكثرهم قرآنا

His statement (and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them) is an indicator towards their reason for making him their leader (in salat) despite that they were of more noble statuses than him. In the report of al-Tabarani, it is narrated: “because he was the most knowledgeable of them of the Qur’an)7

The explanation is confirmed by this riwayah of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H):

حدثنا ابن نمير عن عبيد الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أن المهاجرين حين أقبلوا من مكة نزلوا إلى جنب قباء فأمهم سالم مولى أبي حذيفة لأنه كان أكثرهم قرآنا فيهم أبو سلمة بن عبد الأسد وعمر بن الخطاب

Ibn Numayr – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the Muhajirun fled Makkah, they camped near Quba and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, led them in salat because he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them. Among them were Abu Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Asad and ‘Umar b. al-Khattab.8

Grading another hadith with this same exact chain, ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) declares:

وهذا إسناد صحيح على شرط الشيخين

This chain is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.9

Al-Bukhari further records:

حدثنا عثمان بن صالح حدثنا عبد الله بن وهب أخبرني ابن جريج أن نافعا أخبره أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أخبره قال كان سالم مولى أبي حذيفة يؤم المهاجرين الأولين وأصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم في مسجد قباء فيهم أبو بكر وعمر وأبو سلمة وزيد وعامر بن ربيعة

‘Uthman b. Salih – ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb – Ibn Jurayj – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him:

Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead the earliest Muhajirun and the Sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in Salat in the mosque of Quba. Among them were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Abu Salamah, and Amirb . Rabi’ah.10

So, the most senior Muhajirun – including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – unanimously appointed Salim, a freed slave, as their Imam in salat pending the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, because he was more knowledgeable of the Qur’an than all of them. This, obviously, was in line with the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Salim was a freed slave. But, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah actually allow leadership in salat by even serving slaves and bastards too, as long as they are the best in Qur’anic recitation, as al-Hafiz declares:

وإلى صحة إمامة العبد ذهب الجمهور وخالف مالك وإلى صحة إمامة ولد الزنا ذهب الجمهور

The majority (of the scholars) accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a slave. But, (Imam) Malik objected.... Also, the majority accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a bastard.11

The supreme Salafi fiqh council in Saudi Arabia and across the world, al-Lajnah al-Daimah, also states:

تصح إمامة العبد وولد الزنا في الصلاة، إذا كان كل منهما أهلا لذلك، من جهة الدين؛ لعموم قوله :يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله " ولا نعلم دليلا يمنع ذلك

The leadership of the slave or the bastard in salat is correct, as long as each of them is qualified for it, from the religious aspect, due to the generality of his (i.e. the Prophet’s) statement, “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.” We do not know any proof forbidding that.12

Even a small child can lead his grandfathers in salat, according to the same council:

تصح إمامة الصبي الذي يعقل الصلاة؛ لقول النبي( ص) " يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله "

The leadership of salat by a small child, who understands salat, is correct, due to the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.”13

As such, if the Messenger of Allah ever truly designated Abu Bakr as Imam in salat during the former’s fatal illness – and he never did – then it would have been only because he considered him as having the best recitation among the Sahabah – nothing more, nothing less. Most importantly, even if Abu Bakr had been a bastard – and he was NOT – he would still have been appointed Imam in salat over the Sahabah by the Prophet at that point in time, according to Sunni Islam, as long as he had the best Qur’anic recitation among them. The problem however is that Abu Bakr was never the overall best reciter among his colleagues.

So, he was unqualified, and therefore could never have been appointed as Imam during the period of the illness. Still, even if he had been qualified and had been designated, it would have indicated absolutely nothing of spiritual status or choice for the khilafah after the Messenger.

However, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah go to desperate lengths in exaggerating about the event – which, in the first place, is narrated only in severely contradictory reports. For instance, Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) claims about the alleged leadership of the Sahabah in salat by Abu Bakr:

فيه فوائد منها فضيلة أبي بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه وترجيحه على جميع الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين وتفضيله وتنبيه على أنه أحق بخلافة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غيره ومنها أن الإمام إذا عرض له عذر عن حضور الجماعة استخلف من يصلي بهم وأنه لا يستخلف إلا أفضلهم

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and his notice that he (Abu Bakr) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else. Among them (i.e. the benefits) is that the Imam, if he has an excuse for not attending the congregational prayer, he should deputize someone to lead them in salat, and that he cannot deputize except the best of them.14

For Allah’s sake, where exactly did he get all that? We are certain that this same Nawawi and his followers would object to these words about Salim – the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, concerning his leadership over Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the other Sahabah in salat:

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Salim,may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and a notice that he (Salim) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else.

It is amusing how almost everything about Abu Bakr – whether true or not – is easily interpreted by the Ahl al-Sunnah as “evidence” of his “excellence”, “superiority” and “khilafah”. Sometimes, the ridiculousness of such submissions gets to extreme lengths, as in this case of his alleged leadership in salat. For instance, they claim that Abu Bakr’s leadership in salat over the Sahabah was evidence of his overall superiority above them. Of course, such a conclusion actually contradicts the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Nonetheless, did Abu Bakr not lead the Prophet in salat according to Sunnis? So, did the Messenger consider himself to have lost his overall superiority over Abu Bakr? Moreover, Abu Bakr allegedly offered the leadership of the salat to ‘Umar. Was he then admitting thereby the superiority of ‘Umar over himself?

Notes

1. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 4, p. 409, # 19680

2. Ibid

3. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 464, # 672 (289)

4. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 163, # 12687

5. Ibid

6. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 1, p. 246, # 660

7. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 156

8. ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. Abi Shaybah Ibrahim b. ‘Uthman b. Abi Bakr b. Abi Shaybah al-Kufi al-‘Ubsi, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah fi al-Ahadith wa al-Athar (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1409 H) [annotator: Prof. Sa’id al-Laham], vol. 1, p. 379, # 11

9. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih Abi Dawud (Kuwait: Muasassat al-Gharas li al-Nashrwa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1423 H), vol. 3, p. 270, # 688

10. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 6, p. 2625, # 6754

11. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 155

12. Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Daimah li al-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa al-Ifta, compiled and arranged by Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Duwaysh, vol. 7, pp. 414-415

13. Ibid, vol. 7, p. 415

14. Abu Zakariyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1407 H), vol. 4, p. 137

5. Was Abu Bakr Even Qualified To Lead?

Apart from the severe contradictions in the ahadith on Abu Bakr’s alleged leadership of salat during the Prophet’s fatal illness, there is also the question of its factual possibility. It is one thing for something to be possible; it is another for it to have truly occurred. Where it is impossible, then all reports of its occurrence are false by default. However, where it is possible, then additional, consistent and authentic evidence of its actual occurrence must be produced by whoever seeks to rely on that fact. With regards to Abu Bakr’s alleged leadership of the salat, there are only conflicting, irreconcilable “proofs” of it. As such, there actually are none. In this chapter, we seek to explore the possibility of it even ever happening. This way, we bury it for good.

Without a doubt, the very first step in determining the possibility of Abu Bakr’s leadership of the salat is to establish or discredit his qualification for it. Unless it is proved that he was qualified to lead, then every effort to claim that he did is futile. If he was not qualified, apparently his appointment as prayer leader by the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, would have been impossible. However, if he was qualified, it would, in that case, be at least possible. Then, additional, unquestionable evidence would become admissible to establish its factual occurrence.

So, was Abu Bakr qualified to lead the Messenger of Allah in salat? Moreover, was he equally qualified to lead the Sahabah in salat in the Prophet’s mosque?

The answer to the first question is in this verse:

يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تقدموا بين يدي الله ورسوله واتقوا الله إن الله سميع عليم

O you who believe! Do not lead in front of Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah isAll- Hearing, All-Knowing.1

This effectively makes it absolutely haram to lead the Prophet of Allah in anything – including in battles and salat. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) also states:

حكى ذلك القاضي عياض قال ولا يصح لأحد أن يؤم جالسا بعده صلى الله عليه وسلم قال وهو مشهور قول مالك وجماعة أصحابه قال وهذا أولى الأقاويل لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يصح التقدم بين يديه في الصلاة ولا في غيرها ولا لعذر ولا لغيره

That is narrated from Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ. He said, “It is not correct for anyone to lead in salat in a sitting posture other than him, peace be upon him.” He said, “And this is the famous statement of Malik and the majority of his companions.” He said, “And this is the most correct of the opinions, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him in salat or in anything else, whether due to an excuse or otherwise.”2

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H), while relating the submissions of Qaḍi Iyaḍ, reports:

واحتج أيضا بأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما صلى بهم قاعدا لأنه لا يصح التقدم بين يديه لنهى الله عن ذلك

He cited as proof also the fact that he, peace be upon him, led them in salat in a sitting posture, because it is NOT correct to lead in front of him, due to the prohibition of that by Allah.3

In simpler words, it was absolutely impossible that Abu Bakr ever led Muhammad in salat or in any anything else. Allah has totally forbidden that; and so, Abu Bakr was NOT qualified in any way or by any means to lead the Messenger in salat or in any other situation or circumstance. Even Abu Bakr too realized this, as documented by Imam Muslim (d. 261 H):

قال أبو بكر ما كان لابن أبي قحافة أن يصلي بين يدي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

Abu Bakr said, “It is NOT for the son of Abu Quhafah (i.e. Abu Bakr) to lead salat in front of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.”4

So, all the reports about how the Prophet was led in salat by Abu Bakr or anyone else from this Ummah are fallacious and hold no truth at all. The Book of Allah rejects them, and Abu Bakr too denounced them. There is also an element of high blasphemy in those ahadith. The only way Abu Bakr could have legitimately led the Messenger of Allah in salat was if the latter had lost or forfeited his risalah (messengership) and had become inferior to the former in many areas.

Moreover, we ask our Sunni brothers: who was the ruler of Madinah at that moment when – as your sect claims - Abu Bakr led the Prophet in salat? Was it the Messenger? Or, was it Abu Bakr? This question is crucial in the light of some authentic narrations in your books. For instance, Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) records:

حدثنا هناد حدثنا أبومعاوية عن الأعمش عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال لا يؤم الرجل في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Hanad – Abu Mu’awiyah – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja - Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”5

Al-Tirmidhi says:

هذا حديث حسن صحيح

This hadith is hasan sahih6

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) also comments:

صحيح

Sahih7

Imam al-Nasai (d. 303 H) also documents:

أخبرنا إبراهيم بن محمد التيمي قال حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن شعبة عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يؤم الرجل في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Taymi – Yahya b. Sa’id – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “No one can lead a man in salat in his place of authority, and no one can sit in his place of honour except with his permission.”8

And ‘Allamah al-Albani declares again:

صحيح

Sahih9

So, if the Prophet of Allah was really still the amir of the Muslims at that moment, then Abu Bakr was further disqualified from ever leading him insalat ! Whoever insists that Abu Bakr was his Imam is telling us that he (the Messenger) had lost authority over Madinah. Meanwhile, the authority of the Prophet was, and still is, tied to his risalah, among others. As such, if he had lost authority over Madinah, then he must have lost all his divine ranks. The direct implication of this is – the only way Abu Bakr could have been the Prophet’s Imam was if the latter was no longer a messenger of Allah, at the least! Therefore, whoever claims that Abu Bakr led him in salat has thereby rejected his (i.e. the Prophet’s) risalah! There is simply no second way to it.

In other ahadith, the Messenger of Allah mentions some other conditions with farther reaching implications. Imam Muslim records:

وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة وأبو سعيد الأشج كلاهما عن أبي خالد قال أبو بكر حدثنا أبو خالد الأحمر عن الأعمش عن إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أوس بن ضمعج عن أبي مسعود الأنصاري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله فإن كانوا في القراءة سواء فأعلمهم بالسنة فإن كانوا في السنة سواء فأقدمهم هجرة فإن كانوا في الهجرة سواء فأقدمهم سلما ولا يؤمن الرجل الرجل في سلطانه ولا يقعد في بيته على تكرمته إلا بإذنه

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah and Abu Sa’id al-Ashja’ – Abu Khalid: Abu Bakr – Abu Khalid al-Ahmar – al-A’mash – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them. But, if they are equal in recitation, then the one who is the most knowledgeable among them concerning the Sunnah.If they are equal regarding the Sunnah, then the earliest of them to do the hijrah. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the earliest of them to embrace Islam. No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority, or sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”10

There is need to quickly highlight a point here. Where someone is the ruler or administrator of a place, as long as he is a Muslim, none can lead him in salat in it. He is the automatic Imam, even if he is not the best of them in Qur’anic recitation, or in knowledge of the Sunnah. His political authority overrides all the other set conditions. However, where none in the mosque is the ruler of its area, then the various criteria are examined in the specified order. Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) confirms:

وفي رواية مسلم لا يؤمن الرجل الرجل في سلطانه ولذا كان ابن عمر يصلي خلف الحجاج وصح عن ابن عمر أن إمام المسجد مقدم على غير السلطان

In the report of (Imam) Muslim, it is stated “No man can lead another in salat in a place where the latter has authority.”... This was why Ibn ‘Umar used to offer salat behind al-Hajjaj. It is also authentically narrated that Ibn ‘Umar stated that the Imam of the mosque leads (only) the non-ruler.11

These facts reveal that leadership in salat is no indicator of superiority before Allah at all. Ibn ‘Umar was superior – in the eyes of Sunni Islam – over al-Hajjaj in all ways and by all means. So, even a drunken Sunni governor can validly be the Imam for a saint of Allah. The other criteria in the hadith are of the same effect as well. The best reciter in the Ummah, who is the most qualified to lead the salat after the ruler or governor, may – just like the executive leader - not necessarily be the best of the Muslims, or their most knowledgeable. Something we wonder about though is – how many of the Sunni kings, sultans, emirs, presidents and sheikhs today lead salat in their grand mosques?

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) also documents:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبة عن إسماعيل بن رجاء قال سمعت أوس بن ضمعج يقول سمعت أبا مسعود يقول قال لنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله تعالى وإقدمهم قراءة فان كانت قراءتهم سواء فليؤمهم أقدمهم هجرة فان كانوا في الهجرة سواء فليؤمهم أكبرهم سنا ولا يؤمن الرجل في أهله ولا في سلطانه ولا يجلس على تكرمته في بيته الا ان يأذن له أو بإذنه

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father – Muhammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – Isma’il b. Raja – Aws b. Ḍam’aj – Abu Mas’ud:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said to us: “The people should be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah the Most High among them. But, if their recitations are equal, then the earliest of them in hijrah should lead them in salat. If they are equal in the hijrah, then the oldest of them should lead them in salat. No man can be led in salat among his family members or in a place where he has authority, or none can sit in his place of honour in his house without his permission.”12

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim13

It is undisputed that Abu Bakr was not the ruler over the Messenger of Allah at any point in time. Therefore, he was automatically and absolutely disqualified from ever leading his Prophet in salat. Besides, was Abu Bakr a better reciter of the Qur’an than the Messenger of Allah? Was he more knowledgeable of the Sunnah than the Prophet? Did Abu Bakr do the hijrah before him? Was he older than his Messenger? Did he accept Islam before his Prophet? We ask – on what basis exactly was Abu Bakr ever qualified lead the Master and Best of all creation in salat? Apparently, there is none, and there can never be any! As such, all the Sunni riwayat about how he supposedly was the Imam of the Messenger are only Sunni exaggerations and hallucinations!

Interestingly, Abu Bakr was equally unqualified to lead even the other Sahabah! In order to be qualified, he had to be their best reciter. But, was he? Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) records the answer of ‘Umar:

حدثنا عمرو بن علي حدثنا يحيى حدثنا سفيان عن حبيب عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس قال قال عمر رضي الله عنه: أقرؤنا أبي وأقضانا علي

‘Amr b. ‘Ali – Yahya – Sufyan – Habib – Sa’id b. Jubayr – Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar,may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The best reciter among us is Ubayy, and the best judge among us is ‘Ali.”14

‘Allamah al-Albani has equally copied the Prophetic confirmation of this:

عن أنس بن مالك، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :أرحم أمتي بأمتي أبو بكر وأشدهم في دين الله عمر وأصدقهم حياء عثمان وأقضاهم علي بن أبي طالب. وأقرؤهم لكتاب الله أبي بن كعب

Narrated Anas b. Malik:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said, “The most merciful of my Ummah to my Ummah is Abu Bakr. The most severe of them in the religion of Allah is ‘Umar. The most shy of them is ‘Uthman. And the best judge among them is ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. And the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them is Ubayy b. Ka’b.”15

صحيح

Sahih.16

So, it was not Abu Bakr?! Therefore, it was Ubayy who was qualified for the leadership of the salat and NOT Abu Bakr! With the presence of Ubayy among the Sahabah, Abu Bakr – the first Sunni khalifah – was thereby disqualified from leading either the Prophet or his followers in salat in the grand mosque of Madinah. With this, all the reports about Abu Bakr’s leadership of the salat drown in the Sunni ocean of fabrications. The Messenger of Allah would never place the wrong rod in the right hole – neither by nepotism nor by mistake. The Sunnah is that the best reciter should lead in salat – unless where the ruler is present. Abu Bakr was neither the best reciter nor the ruler. Those facts alone terminate the entire story.

Notes

1. Qur’an 49:1

2. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 2, p. 294

3. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 146

4. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 316, # 421 (102)

5. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 99, # 2772

6. Ibid

7. Ibid

8. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, al-Mujtaba min al-Sunan (Halab: Maktab al-Matbu’at al-Islamiyyah; 2nd edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 2, p. 77, # 783

9. Ibid

10. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 465, # 673 (290)

11. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 2, p. 29

12. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 4, p. 121, # 17133

13. Ibid

14. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 4, p. 1628, # 4211

15. Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah (Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1417 H), vol. 1, pp. 67-68, # 125

16. Ibid

6. Imamah of Bastards and Children

The most qualified to lead salat in any circumstance is the Muslim administrator within his domain, according to Sunni Islam. He may be righteous or a drunkard. He may be a good reciter or a poor one. He may be knowledgeable or ignorant. He is the automatic Imam. Where he is absent in the mosque, then the most qualified is the best reciter among those present. This best reciter too may also be the best of them in the Sight of Allah – in terms of taqwa (piety) and knowledge – or one of their worst. Leadership in salat has nothing to do with righteousness or spiritual superiority. A lot of Sunni ahadith testify to this. We have discussed some of them in the last chapter. Let us briefly quote a few more before proceeding. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا يحيى بن سعيد ثنا هشام قال ثنا قتادة عن يونس بن جبير عن حطان بن عبد الله الرقاشي ان الأشعري صلى بأصحابه صلاة... فقال الأشعري ...ان نبي الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خطبنا فعلمنا سنتنا وبين لنا صلاتنا فقال أقيموا صفوفكم ثم ليؤمكم أقرؤكم

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Sa’id – Hisham – Qatadah – Yunus b. Jubayr – Hittan b. ‘Abd Allah al-Raqashi:

Al-Ash’ari led his companions in a salat So, al-‘Ashari said, “... Verily, the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, gave us a sermon and taught us our Sunnah, and explained to us our salat. So, he said, ‘Establish your congregational rows. Then, the best reciter among you should be your Imam.’”1

Shaykh al-Arnaut says:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.2

Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) also documents:

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا أبو عوانة عن قتادة عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا كانوا ثلاثة فليؤمهم أحدهم وأحقهم بالإمامة أقرؤهم

Qutaybah b. Sa’id – Abu ‘Awanah – Qatadah – Abu Naḍrah – Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “Whenever there are three persons, one of them should be their Imam. The most entitled to be the Imam among them is the best reciter among them.3

Imam Ahmad again records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عبد الرزاق أنا بن جريج قال لي عبد الملك ان أنس بن مالك قال عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال يؤم القوم أقرؤهم للقرآن

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd al-Malik – Anas b. Malik:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, said: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Qur’an among them.”4

Al-Arnaut submits:

صحيح لغيره

It is sahih li ghayrihi5

The Sahabah too put this into practice. Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) documents such an instance:

حدثنا إبراهيم بن المنذر قال حدثنا أنس بن عياض عن عبيد الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال : لما قدم المهاجرون الأولون العصبة موضع بقباء قبل مقدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم كان يؤمهم سالم مولى أبي حذيفة وكان أكثرهم قرآنا

Ibrahim b. al-Mundhir – Anas b. ‘Iyaḍ – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the earliest Muhajirun came to al-‘Usbah, a place in Quba, before the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead them in salat, and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them.6

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) comments about this hadith:

قوله) وكان أكثر هم قرآنا (إشارة إلى سبب تقديمهم له مع كونهم أشرف منه وفي رواية للطبراني لأنه كان أكثرهم قرآنا

His statement (and he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them) is an indicator towards their reason for making him their leader (in salat) despite that they were of more noble statuses than him. In the report of al-Tabarani, it is narrated: “because he was the most knowledgeable of them of the Qur’an)7

The explanation is confirmed by this riwayah of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H):

حدثنا ابن نمير عن عبيد الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أن المهاجرين حين أقبلوا من مكة نزلوا إلى جنب قباء فأمهم سالم مولى أبي حذيفة لأنه كان أكثرهم قرآنا فيهم أبو سلمة بن عبد الأسد وعمر بن الخطاب

Ibn Numayr – ‘Ubayd Allah – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar:

When the Muhajirun fled Makkah, they camped near Quba and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, led them in salat because he was the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an among them. Among them were Abu Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Asad and ‘Umar b. al-Khattab.8

Grading another hadith with this same exact chain, ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) declares:

وهذا إسناد صحيح على شرط الشيخين

This chain is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.9

Al-Bukhari further records:

حدثنا عثمان بن صالح حدثنا عبد الله بن وهب أخبرني ابن جريج أن نافعا أخبره أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أخبره قال كان سالم مولى أبي حذيفة يؤم المهاجرين الأولين وأصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم في مسجد قباء فيهم أبو بكر وعمر وأبو سلمة وزيد وعامر بن ربيعة

‘Uthman b. Salih – ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb – Ibn Jurayj – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him:

Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead the earliest Muhajirun and the Sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in Salat in the mosque of Quba. Among them were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Abu Salamah, and Amirb . Rabi’ah.10

So, the most senior Muhajirun – including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – unanimously appointed Salim, a freed slave, as their Imam in salat pending the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, because he was more knowledgeable of the Qur’an than all of them. This, obviously, was in line with the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Salim was a freed slave. But, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah actually allow leadership in salat by even serving slaves and bastards too, as long as they are the best in Qur’anic recitation, as al-Hafiz declares:

وإلى صحة إمامة العبد ذهب الجمهور وخالف مالك وإلى صحة إمامة ولد الزنا ذهب الجمهور

The majority (of the scholars) accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a slave. But, (Imam) Malik objected.... Also, the majority accepted the correctness of leadership in salat by a bastard.11

The supreme Salafi fiqh council in Saudi Arabia and across the world, al-Lajnah al-Daimah, also states:

تصح إمامة العبد وولد الزنا في الصلاة، إذا كان كل منهما أهلا لذلك، من جهة الدين؛ لعموم قوله :يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله " ولا نعلم دليلا يمنع ذلك

The leadership of the slave or the bastard in salat is correct, as long as each of them is qualified for it, from the religious aspect, due to the generality of his (i.e. the Prophet’s) statement, “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.” We do not know any proof forbidding that.12

Even a small child can lead his grandfathers in salat, according to the same council:

تصح إمامة الصبي الذي يعقل الصلاة؛ لقول النبي( ص) " يؤم القوم أقرؤهم لكتاب الله "

The leadership of salat by a small child, who understands salat, is correct, due to the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “The people are to be led in salat by the best reciter of the Book of Allah among them.”13

As such, if the Messenger of Allah ever truly designated Abu Bakr as Imam in salat during the former’s fatal illness – and he never did – then it would have been only because he considered him as having the best recitation among the Sahabah – nothing more, nothing less. Most importantly, even if Abu Bakr had been a bastard – and he was NOT – he would still have been appointed Imam in salat over the Sahabah by the Prophet at that point in time, according to Sunni Islam, as long as he had the best Qur’anic recitation among them. The problem however is that Abu Bakr was never the overall best reciter among his colleagues.

So, he was unqualified, and therefore could never have been appointed as Imam during the period of the illness. Still, even if he had been qualified and had been designated, it would have indicated absolutely nothing of spiritual status or choice for the khilafah after the Messenger.

However, the ‘ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah go to desperate lengths in exaggerating about the event – which, in the first place, is narrated only in severely contradictory reports. For instance, Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) claims about the alleged leadership of the Sahabah in salat by Abu Bakr:

فيه فوائد منها فضيلة أبي بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه وترجيحه على جميع الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين وتفضيله وتنبيه على أنه أحق بخلافة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غيره ومنها أن الإمام إذا عرض له عذر عن حضور الجماعة استخلف من يصلي بهم وأنه لا يستخلف إلا أفضلهم

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and his notice that he (Abu Bakr) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else. Among them (i.e. the benefits) is that the Imam, if he has an excuse for not attending the congregational prayer, he should deputize someone to lead them in salat, and that he cannot deputize except the best of them.14

For Allah’s sake, where exactly did he get all that? We are certain that this same Nawawi and his followers would object to these words about Salim – the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, concerning his leadership over Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the other Sahabah in salat:

There are benefits from it. Among them is the excellence of Salim,may Allah be pleased with him, and his preference over all the Sahabah, riḍwanullah ‘alaihim ajma’in, and his overall superiority and a notice that he (Salim) was more entitled to the khilafah of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, than anyone else.

It is amusing how almost everything about Abu Bakr – whether true or not – is easily interpreted by the Ahl al-Sunnah as “evidence” of his “excellence”, “superiority” and “khilafah”. Sometimes, the ridiculousness of such submissions gets to extreme lengths, as in this case of his alleged leadership in salat. For instance, they claim that Abu Bakr’s leadership in salat over the Sahabah was evidence of his overall superiority above them. Of course, such a conclusion actually contradicts the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Nonetheless, did Abu Bakr not lead the Prophet in salat according to Sunnis? So, did the Messenger consider himself to have lost his overall superiority over Abu Bakr? Moreover, Abu Bakr allegedly offered the leadership of the salat to ‘Umar. Was he then admitting thereby the superiority of ‘Umar over himself?

Notes

1. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 4, p. 409, # 19680

2. Ibid

3. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 1, p. 464, # 672 (289)

4. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 163, # 12687

5. Ibid

6. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 1, p. 246, # 660

7. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 156

8. ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. Abi Shaybah Ibrahim b. ‘Uthman b. Abi Bakr b. Abi Shaybah al-Kufi al-‘Ubsi, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah fi al-Ahadith wa al-Athar (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1409 H) [annotator: Prof. Sa’id al-Laham], vol. 1, p. 379, # 11

9. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih Abi Dawud (Kuwait: Muasassat al-Gharas li al-Nashrwa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1423 H), vol. 3, p. 270, # 688

10. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 6, p. 2625, # 6754

11. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 2, p. 155

12. Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Daimah li al-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa al-Ifta, compiled and arranged by Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Duwaysh, vol. 7, pp. 414-415

13. Ibid, vol. 7, p. 415

14. Abu Zakariyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1407 H), vol. 4, p. 137


4

5

6